In light of our recent discussions in class, I have found myself thinking about where I stand when it comes to particular political issues. Granted-- not much has changed recently about myself or about my views (I still believe in capitalism and the free market, a woman's right to choose and national security) but when it comes to what moves me THE MOST... where do I stand?
This weekend I was talking about the state of our nation with my friend's parents, discussing the concept of socialism and the fact that although "socialism" has such a negative connotation, America cannot claim to be completely non-socialist. As we've discussed in class, the public education system, social security, public transportation and services such as the fire department are all socialist additions to the US, among others. And with so much social welfare in the country already (once instituted there is no way it can be rescinded), as well as so much wealth in our country, it seems that nationalized health care would be the next step... but where does this stop?
Of course we all seemed to agree to the "maximin" principle suggested by Rawls, ensuring even the least benefitted person basic rights and needs. Although I am not totally sold on nationalized healthcare (especially the present 2000-page bill which I think would be detrimental to our country) I do think that healthcare should be affordable and accessible to all Americans. But my feelings on extending (and decreeing) something that is nationalized and funded by the government to all citizens worries me mainly because politicians continue to promise more and more things from the government... so where does this stop? Does everyone deserve to own their own home next? Does everyone deserve their own car or TV, given to them by the government?
So I guess the conclusion that I came to is: what matters the most when it comes to the government is that I am a libertarian who believes in incentive. I believe that people need incentives in order to contribute to society and earn the things that they feel they deserve. I believe that all people have a right to life and liberty, but that they also have a duty to contribute to society if they expect to reap the benefits of it. I know that the world has a lot of problems, and I am definitely not excluding America, but shouldn't we be thinking about what WE can do for our government, and NOT what our government can do for us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You say that people "have a duty to contribute to society if they expect to reap the benefits of it." I agree with this, but it seems to me that taxation is the only infallible way to get everyone to contribute to society. (Even if people don't work or own a home and therefore don't pay income or property tax, they still buy things, so they pay sales tax.)
ReplyDeleteIt would be very difficult to effectively and systematically evaluate a person's "contributions" to society in any other sense and to distribute rewards based upon that. That idea is intangible and subjective. To take it a step further, it could be construed as measuring a person's worth to his/her society, which, I'm sure you would agree, no government (or person, entity, institution, etc.) has the right to do.
I think you bring up very good arguements about the struggle of mixing socialism and capitalism in a society. However, some of the people who may contribute the least to society may just need a lift, or some help to get them on their way. If the government can do this I think they should do their best to do so. Everyone deserves a chance at making a contribution.
ReplyDeleteI think that you and I come to many of the same conclusions, perhaps because philosophy is still so new and scary to us. I have found that Rawls is one of my favorite philosophers so far because he has an ethic for care but still recognizes that not everyone will make provisions for the most poorly provided-for individuals.
ReplyDelete