代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

Assignment代写:The libertarianism

2018-05-02 来源: 51due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- The libertarianism,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了自由至上主义。自由至上主义坚持自由至上,坚决维护个人自由。在自由问题上,自由至上主义是以“绝对个人主义”为思想基础的,即在限定的范围内应当让个人遵循他们自己的价值和偏好;并在这个领域内,个人的目标体系高于一切,而不受他人任何命令的约束。由此可见,自由至上主义是以维护个人自由为核心的,个人自由是他们的基本的和首要价值。

liber,自由至上主义,assignment代写,美国作业代写,作业代写

The liberal supremacist insists on freedom, and insists on individual freedom. The liberal supremacist is based on the idea of "absolute individualism" on the question of freedom, namely, "the individual should be allowed to follow their own values and preferences within a limited scope. And in this area, the personal goal system is above all, and is not subject to any orders from others. Thus, freedom is the core of personal freedom, and individual freedom is their basic and primary value. Supremacist to ensure individual freedom, freedom is the first condition is that the absolute property of the private system, for the freedom of the market, against the use of tax redistribution mechanism to implement the equality theory of liberalism, they think that the free market is in essence of justice.

The liberal supremacist, represented by nozick, takes the form of the right as a constraint, that is, deciding what others can do and what they can't do. Free first mutually beneficial mechanism gives the ownership of the self to others and not trying to force others to promote the interests of the us, it fits everyone's interests, as long as the others also respect our own ownership.

Some utilitarian thought that has the same effect with utilitarianism, gold card in mentioned the similarities of utilitarianism and liberalism, once said: "the argument for unfettered capitalism is a common path: assert that it is able to increase social wealth are the most efficient methods of production. Many utilitarians support the free market because of the belief that such an efficient way of production maximizes the overall preferences. Forcing others is too costly, and the benefits are too low to justify putting themselves at risk. The interpretation of this view is that people are born with such rights, which are not bound, and such rights have certain intrinsic value. Such rights are restrictions on others, everyone in a self with others rights within the seat belt, can cross such a safe distance, if over the safe distance, even if is good or benefit is wider, but the overall for rights are violated, this kind of behavior is libertarians can't stand. They therefore put forward the idea of the weakest state, not only that others could not interfere with their rights, but that even the state should do the least to interfere with everyone. The legitimacy of the state is whether invasions on the rights of to every one of us, in addition to the necessary facilities and institutions, countries should be less as far as possible to interfere with the freedom of the individual, and this is a fundamental moral as well as the constraints. But there is a problem with the reciprocal or "compact" mechanism of liberal supremacy.

Nozick believes that, assuming that everyone has power and qualifications for their property, the distribution of justice is just the distribution of people's free exchange. Any distribution created by free transfer in the case of justice is just. Nozick's theory of eligibility contains three main principles: first, the principle of transfer: anything obtained through a proper path can be transferred freely. Second, the initial principle of justice: how people were initially given an explanation of what could be transferred in accordance with the first principle. Third, the corrective principle of injustice: how to deal with the property acquired through improper means or through improper means. The combination of these three principles means that if people's current property is obtained through proper means, the formula for distributive justice is "to choose and to choose." The crux of the problem here is that the liberal supremacist does not defend the right to a certain resource. Because insist on self ownership is not only consistent with everyone's interests and match each person's ability, and redistribution match only part of the interests of the people, but it requires redistribution of people have no ability to request the redistribution. In fact, only those who have resources in the whole logic are free, and those without resources are not free. Suppose that the original distribution was determined according to rawls's difference principle, so that no matter what people's natural endowments were, everyone had an equal resource at the beginning. But after a period of time, the more gifted will gain more shares, and those who may not be able to earn a living will exhaust their resources and be on the verge of starvation. And our intuition tells us that we can still tax the income of the more talented to avoid starving those people. Nozick's example is compelling because it fits with our intuition about choice, but his example ignores our other intuitions-to deal fairly with inequality. From here we can easily see that nozick and his freedom by the supremacist adhere to fair and justice is unreliable, nozick doesn't really care about, he really CARES about the legitimacy of individual rights and wealth is the source of legitimacy, so as to maintain the legitimacy of the property rights, is for the existing property rights concerned instead of concern for all people, so that justice is not justice. In nozick's mind, efficiency and efficiency are far greater than fairness. Therefore, there is a logic error in the right qualification and freedom upheld by the freedom supremacist.

The idea of freedom is more about the right to rights, and more about the rights of private property. In order to guarantee individual freedom, the first requirement of the liberal supremacy is absolute property ownership. "Private ownership is the most important guarantee of freedom," hayek said. "it is not just for the property owner, but also for the proletariat. It is only because the production data is in the hands of many individuals who are acting independently, that we have no control over us, that we can determine what we are going to do as individuals. If all were the means of production on one hand, no matter it is belong to the whole society ", in nominal, or belong to a dictator, who exercise this authority, who has full control us, "a person legally acquired the property to possess, use and transfer of the right to be regarded as a absolute value. The liberal supremacist urged the privatisation of property. Their logic is that only the property rights in a decentralized state, can make the power in a decentralized state, and the separation of powers is the basis of freedom and democracy, because through tax redistribution is invasions on the rights of people, so it is essentially wrong.

But property rights is not the only moral right of the people, people also have other rights, such as India's constitution mentioned "a fully make a living right" "the right not to hunger" mentioned in the United States declaration of independence: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", these are one of the inalienable right. Our moral intuitions tell us that the right to freedom from hunger is greater than the right to property, with greater moral pressure. Sometimes, even though it may infringe upon the intrinsic value of our so-called rights, we also admit it, because we know that he is justified and just. A more comprehensive view on rights, is sticking to its intrinsic importance, certainly is a target of the evaluation system of property rights, sometimes also advises for other more important goal and infringement of property rights, not property rights do not take independent from the result, sure the position of property rights, this is to avoid too much emphasis on property rights lead to ethical dilemmas. Because although nozick stresses can volunteer for subsidies and handouts for the poor, but if there is no compulsory measures and the existence of strong, is very weak and the basis of the "voluntary" not really. Market freedom is either the means to maximize utility or the means to protect political rights and civil liberties. According to these explanations, we are in favor of free markets, not because people enjoy property rights. Instead, we see people's property rights as a way to enhance utility or to stabilize democracy; Therefore, if we can increase utility or stabilize democracy through other means, we are justified in restricting property rights. Nozick's argument is flawed in this respect. Liberalism emphasizes "constraint" and ignores consequences. In the previous article, we have mentioned the restriction of the right of the free supremacist, which is indeed the recognition of the importance of the right, but in practice, it ignores the contradictions and problems caused by the consequences. We know that people are a social person, in our work or get along with most of the problems is not our a person's question, but interdependent and interconnected with others problems, such as we the police in pursuing a potentially harmful to the society, but in the process of pursuing may without citizens agree to borrow the car or the vendor of the fruit stand over. We know people on his car and vendor has absolute power on their own fruit, or the road, perhaps there are many kinds of rights of checks and balances that the police can't chase to the potential damage to the society, will harm society may understand, but if there is no harm social, merely a thief stole the others money, then according to nozick's theory, the citizens of such help and vendor is not compulsory but serious infringement of the rights by the police. But contact us to think about their own life, this is not up to our moral intuition, and in the present society of so closely associated, perhaps for consideration the results and consequences, will pay more attention to the rights of consideration, we will assign some rights to protect the safety of ourselves and others, more rights realization and meet the relative value of, can be concluded that there is reason to infringe the rights of some trivial, in order to prevent more important rights violated worse results. As in the article, the discussion about the amount of freedom and quality of freedom is more important. And obviously the quality of freedom is greater than the quantity of freedom.

Liberalism first mention free supremacist mutually beneficial theory often stated contract terms, as this is similar to the equality of liberalism theory, but the two theories in common use contract strategy may blur the fundamental differences between them. Such as free supremacist contract is: "keep don't hurt each other regular is mutually beneficial - and in this way, we don't have to in order to protect our own property and waste of resources, we also established a stable cooperation is possible. Occasionally in violation of this agreement may be identical own short-term interests, but will act according to their short-term interests to shake the foundation of our mutual cooperation and mutual constraints, so it will harm the long-term interests of everyone." This is very different with rawls's difference principle: rawls use contract strategy to the traditional concept of development of our moral obligation, to clarify the intrinsic moral status, to eliminate the differences in negotiation control, and the libertarians is to use it to replace traditional ideas about moral obligation, such as "thought is the moral value of objective things, is no more than a man's subjective preference", fiction a moral status, reflect the cancel the control difference. Both of these contract theories have very different moral meanings, both in terms of their premise and conclusion.

The author thinks that many things should start from time to time, and present an unsatisfactory situation in a social stage. Some thinkers observe this phenomenon and come up with many concrete solutions. This is the source of a lot of thought or doctrine, and it is a specific proposition for the problem. In the process of gradual acceptance, this claim is reduced to an abstract name in the process of communication. "Contract", "doctrine", is the greatest danger, because it is difficult to think of an abstract noun, which can cover all specific propositions. ? capitalism as we know, Adam Smith's capitalism and Keynes capitalism is different, you and I are different in the understanding of capitalism, he also certainly is not the only four words to sum up, the use of a word, perhaps among the great distance, but can be called a capitalist, use a noun but connotation is different, can give a person greatly. Therefore, it is more clear and more conducive to academic exchanges and research to advocate concretization or to replace the former nouns with other nouns.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写、美国作业代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:Assignment代写:Cognitive linguis 下一篇:Assignment代写:Australian TAFE t