economics
...no interest in a particular topic they should have the choice of whether or not they want to donate their hard-earned funds to the cause. The last guideline which, Hospers states is that “No human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another” (Hospers, 321). This meaning that no one can claim someone else’s life, work, or products of efforts as their own. “The wealth that some men have produced should not be fair game for looting by government, to be used for whatever purposes its representatives determine, no matter what their motives in so doing may be”(Hospers, 321). Under this guideline Hospers also states that every man has the right to property and any attempt by others to take it away from him violates this right, through the use of coercion against him. All in all Hospers ideal libertarian utopia would consist of strict empowerment of his three main guidelines. The government’s main and most important objective would be to protect all citizens against any kind of aggression by other individuals. The government would see to it that one person’s freedom would end rite where the next person’s begins. This tends to relate with Mill’s harm principle, which in his opinion should be the only justifiable liberty limiting principle. The government would also have to see to it that there are no laws compromising in any ways freedom of speech, the press, and of peaceable assembly. Also there would be no censorship of ideas, books, films, or of anything else by the government. In this libertarian society there would also be “the right to property: libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misrepresentation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Hospers, 323). Despite the fact that Nielsen somewhat agrees with Hospers on the level that many societies are violating or limiting peoples rights to liberty and freedom he would have much to criticize about Hospers libertarian society. Neilson’s main argument is that all governments should allow their citizens the freedom to have utmost control over every possible aspect of their lives. Neilson feels as though a person’s autonomy, which is their actual ability to be self-governing over their choices, is a freedom which should not be interfered with by anyone, especially the government. Autonomy should not in anyway be prevented to any single person, especially if it is violated due to the way a particular society is run. When the government allows and encourages people to express their autonomy it makes it possible for people to form their choices freely, making it easier for people to act on the rights they have. Nielson would come to completely disagree with Hospers on his proposal of property rights. Neilson feels as though people’s autonomy is restricted when there are private ownerships of production property in existence, in his opinion this is private ownership of the means of life. In a society like this there will be the few that have domination over the majority of the people. This two-class society will be run by the demands of the owners “…determining whether workers (taken now as individuals) can work, how they work, on what they work, the conditions under which they work and what is done with what they produce (where they are producers) and what use is made of their skills and the like” (Neilsen, 329). The only way to prevent this domination is to create a classless society. In order for people to become more autonomous any means of private ownership must be abolished. In Neilson’s ideal society the means of production would be owned and controlled by every and any able-bodied citizen in the society who would also become a worker or already has worked. Here there would be no division between class lines. This destroys any private preserve of an individual owner allowing all citizens of the society an equal ownership. This now allows each person to have an equal right to the means of life. With out a doubt Hospers would most likely respect Neilsen’s proposal to autonomies people’s lives, although he would not be able to disagree more with his socialist ways. Hospers would powerfully oppose Nielsen’s idea to abolish private ownership; this would be in violation of Hospers’ right to property. Hospers would argue that what one man works so hard and diligently for should not be fair game for another man to come along and claim it as his own. The idea of no private ownership also goes against Hospers right to liberty which allows no censorship of ideas. There are many creative people in the world who come up with amazing ideas for new companies, restaurants, businesses, etc... In a socialist society these new aspiring ideas could not be expressed because of the limitation of private ownerships. If you have an idea it should be your right to create and achieve it, as well as profit from it. After careful evaluation of Nielsen’s socialist society it came to me again and again that his idea of a classless society and abolishment of public ownership would not allow people to become more autonomous in the least bit. If anything, in a socialist society, citizens would have fewer rights of liberty as well as autonomy. I will agree that the people of my country today who have worked low-paying jobs of no prestige, whom...