FREE ESSAY ON POVERTY AND ETHICS

POVERTY AND ETHICS

Poverty in the United States has long been a social, political, and human rights issue.
Few people would say that it is not our moral duty, as social human beings to take care
of those less fortunate than ourselves, to the best of our ability. I say "few" because
there are some people out there who believe that we have no moral obligation to do
anything outside of ourselves. These types of people have what is called a "libertarian"
viewpoint. There is really no specific definition of "libertarian", but it is associates
"justice with liberty and…liberty itself with the absence of interference by other
persons." In relation to the matter at hand, specifically poverty in America,
libertarians are against taxing the affluent or forcing people to aid the starving and
poor. 
One of the most influential libertarians of our time is Professor Robert Nozik. His
theory of justice begins with the premise that all people have "Lockean rights", which
require that we refrain from interfering with others. Other than this we have no
obligation to do anything positive for anyone else, and likewise, they have no obligation
towards us. These rights are natural or inalienable because all humans have them and they
do not come from any social or political institutions. These rights forbid us from
interfering with a person's liberty even if it would promote some general good, or
prevent another's rights from being violated. Overall, the general idea is that people
have the liberty to live a life free from intervention of others, and can lead their life
however they so choose. In addition, he says that if a person acquired their fortune or
possessions without harming, defrauding, or violating the rights of any others, then it
is morally permissible to use those things however one wishes. This includes wasting,
willing, or endowing the possessions to someone else. Even though many people are dying
from starvation and malnutrition, Nozik's theory of justice states that one has no
obligation to help those people. 
The previous premise comes to form Nozik's "entitlement theory." Simply put, this theory
states that people are entitled to their belongings and may use them as they wish, as
long as they have fairly acquired them and have not violated another's Lockean rights in
the process. 
His theory is summarized as follows:
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in
acquisition is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in
transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2. 
Relating to poverty, libertarians feel that no matter how the actual distribution of
economic holdings may look, if all involved are entitled to the holdings they possess,
then the distribution is just. In addition, libertarians would be against government
intervention in a society to either improve the social situation or economic situation.
They feel that to tweak the economy, so to speak, would involve violating someone's
liberty, and therefore would make it morally unacceptable. 
By definition, libertarianism requires that market relations are totally unrestricted.
This means that interfering with uncoerced and non-fraudulent transactions or exchanges
between consenting adults is strictly forbidden. For example, a libertarian would be
against government regulation of wages, since the matter of earnings should be decided
between an employer and employee. Likewise, a libertarian would be against providing the
poor with welfare, food stamps, and subsidized housing, because such programs are in
direct contrast with their beliefs about liberty. Why is this? To them, liberty means
being free in terms of the aforementioned theory of rights. All forms of public aid by
definition are funded by the taxation of a country's citizens, regardless of whether an
individual wishes to support the programs or not. We, as Americans, essentially have no
control over what the government funds with our tax dollars. Those supported by such aid
have no right to entitlement, since they have not earned the right to the holdings by any
means. 
Personally, I find the libertarian's preference for private charity over public welfare
quite disheartening. Although I do believe that the public aid programs have been and
continue to be abused, I still feel that as human beings, we have a humanitarian
obligation to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. But to what extent? This
does not mean that we spoonfeed people for the rest of their lives. To start, the
government should use programs like welfare, subsidized housing, and foodstamps primarily
as a method to get people back on their feet, and not as a way of life. 
I feel that those who take a libertarian viewpoint are self-centered, selfish, and simply
inhumane. To deny a human being the ability to have food, clothing, and shelter is
inexcusable. Even though it may seem that some deserve it more than others, when it comes
down to it, we are all the same. Some people have been fortunate enough to grow up in an
environment that is financially, emotionally, and spiritually stable. Some people have
not been so fortunate. Does this mean that they should not be given the opportunity to
try to make something of themselves so that they can change their respective situation? 
A society that employs a libertarian point of view is one that is regressing, not
progressing. In India, the system of social classes is still in effect. Whichever class a
person is born into is the class that they remain a part of…forever. Such a system
offers no opportunity for advancement, and essentially is an example of a belief in the
predestination of all people. It is sad to think that in a society as advanced as the
United States, there are still those among us who would employ such systems, if possible.