Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Libertarianism and Market Critique Conceptual Map, image, image, GQ…

- - - - Any state laws that exist to protect people based on moral reasons, helping the poor by redistributing wealth, and laws imposed to protect people from harm, are all unacceptable by libertarians.
      - Example: Prostitution is morally ambiguous, but it doesn't justify law against it
    - - No laws requiring people to help others
      - Example: Redistributive taxes are from of coercion, the state has no right force the affuent to support the wealth
    - - No laws protecting people from harming themselves(p.60), we have a right as individuals to decide what risks to take (seat belt/motorcycle helmet laws)
      - As long as no third parties are harmed, the state has no right to interfere (p.73).
  - - - Why should the affluent be forced to give to the poor? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, no matter who it does.(p.69). Its not okay to take something that is not yours and give it to others without the consent of the owner.
    - - There are already fixed market values for their services, they have already accepted everything that comes with the occupation
    - - Why should the state force you to choose between taxation and forced labor?
    - - What if Jordan voted against the tax law but it passed away? The majority taxing the minority against its consent is stealing and violets individual rights
    - - Are Jordan's talents really his? Yes, his talents are his and he should be free to do what he wants with them
- - - - "To the baby, will the individual (a real human being?) be treated a product in a deal or a respectable person?" => Does the baby own self-consciousness, if so, does the baby own him/herself?
        
        To Wilentz, the baby is unconscious about the relationship with his/her real mother, and any decisions made on the baby were counted as "the threat of a lawsuit, and the inducement of $10,000 payment" (p.94).
        
        To the parents, without such a moral limit, the desire for wealth caused the lady to ignore the consequence and possible misfortune on the baby. To Wilentz, in a civilized society, money can't buy every thing. (p.94).
    - - What if the "product" is real human being?
        
        Libertarianism: Acceptable If the deal is fair and made by free will.
        
        Utilitarianism: Acceptable if both seller and buyer's happiness are promoted after the deal.
        
        Objection 1st: Rawls => The commercial surrogacy is not purely based on free will if it was under financial pressure.
        
        Objection 2nd: Anderson => Each human being is worthy of respect (p.97). In the meantime, if we viewed babies as treatable products, we also used the mothers as pure tools for surrogacy.
    - - Ex. Outsourcing surrogacy: Indian has a legal system for females to offer their eggs and participate in commercial surrogacy. To Utilitarianism, since it does promote local economy and regulations exist, accordingly, it is a fair deal. However, to Anderson, without experiencing the difficulties of pregnancy, the buyer mother barely could establish a positive mother-childe relationship (Real case #Zheng Shuang #Surrogacy).
      - To the disabled/LGBT/other parents with difficulties having their own children, should we just block the approach for them to satisify the desire for feeding an offspring? Will it count as a
        oppression to the minor groups?