Living in New Hampshire, the topic of libertarian motives in morality and politics is overly relevant and ever expanding. John Hospers, a founder of libertarian ideals, states that “Individuals own their own lives. They, therefore, have the right to act as they choose unless their actions interfere with the liberty of others to act as they choose” This statement is largely considered the backbone of libertarianism. The idea that we have a right to our own life liberty and property up until just before the point where we infringe upon other’s right to life liberty and property. This argument is aided by the libertarian view of limited government interference. Hospers directly refers to this aid when he states the second condition of libertarianism as follows: “The only appropriate function of government is to protect human rights, understood as negative rights” The United States of America, the land of opportunity. That is the name we have created for ourselves. If we have so much opportunity, why do we limit some just to allow others to prevail? How did we get here? According to Hospers, “Government is the most dangerous institution known to man” Minimal government, that is the libertarian goal. Throughout this paper, I am going to explain how the government would handle current hot button topics surrounding U.S. politics today while attempting to defend, analyze, and reflect ideas of libertarianism.

In the view of libertarians, the government has no role in creating laws that protect individuals from themselves. The government, as a whole, is expected to limit its power to protecting citizens against the aggression of others. Before moving forward, it appears clarification is necessary before entirely diving into the dark corners of libertarianism. In the eyes of Hospers and other libertarians, a government is expected only to protect human rights of negative nature, just another way of saying rights of non-interference. Negative rights guarantee no interference/the overall right to be left alone. While on the flip side, positive rights revolve around the idea that humans deserve more. Positive rights specifically often result in an aid to the people from the government. Positive rights must involve the action of others. While in some circumstances it seems as though both could apply and succeed, positive rights, when accepted, out rule negative rights. This is true because we are no longer focusing on one’s actions only affecting oneself, with positive rights we are moved to take from some to help the actions of others. As referenced above, libertarians specifically value three aspects of our rights; life, liberty, and property. Governments minimal interference would be expected only to monitor and enforce laws preventing physical abuse, theft, and infringement upon the right to do as you please. That said, the basic responsibility of Government in a libertarian society would be identified and defined as severely limited to only protecting negative rights. If the whole world turned libertarian overnight, the real-life immediate response would be hectic, but libertarians are inclined to believe that if libertarianism was entirely applied globally, the course of humanity would find a way to balance itself out and find overall success.

According to Hospers, there are three types of laws, two of which are impermissible under a libertarian perspective. Per Hospers,

Laws may be classified into three types: (1) laws protecting individuals against themselves, such as laws against fornication and other sexual behavior, alcohol, and drugs; (2) laws protecting individuals against aggressions by other individuals, such as laws against murder, robbery, and fraud; (3) laws requiring people to help one an- other; for example, all laws which rob Peter to pay Paul, such as welfare.

Of these three laws, the only one of relevance to any Libertarian is law type number two, “laws protecting individuals against aggressions by other individuals, such as laws against murder, robbery, and fraud,”. These types of laws are the only ones defending negative rights and therefore are the only laws in which the minimal government has a motive to interfere. As for the first type of law, there is a general understanding in the mind of a libertarian that people have choices. The choices they make are up to them and whether said choices are permissible to their life is also up to them. Each person has the opportunity in the U.S., the apparent land of opportunity, to analyze and reason through their decision making. If they choose not to do so, that is yet another choice that is entirely up to him or her. In regards to the third type of laws, there is an understanding that a libertarian government would not owe anything to the people. All would be privatized and left to the free market to determine what stays and what goes. The success of a libertarian world view would show itself through the cooperation of minimal government, free market capitalism, and economic conservativism all working together.

The main argument to counter libertarianism is that individuals cannot be trusted to make decisions that will not be detrimental. According to people opposing the ideals, we must protect humans from themselves or else they will create unredeemable and irreversible problems for the people of the future. Regulations regarding emissions, scandal, and health, per libertarian critics, are completely reasonable and necessary to create a cooperative and successful society. Additionally, critics state that market failure creates a necessary time for the government to interfere, and essentially, save the day.

When addressing critics it is important to note that, essentially, libertarians have the understanding that regardless of results following, choices made by humans will result in different choices by others, creating a circle of evolution that allows us the ability to eventually have the pieces of every choice come together for a successful and striving free market system. People would finally be getting what they deserve, not just what the government thinks they deserve.

The striving ideals behind libertarianism represent how people would live if they did not have a safety net. Marketing of companies would become exponentially more important and the representation of said companies would be highly valued as well. In replacing publically owned businesses, companies would have to work even harder to be the best. Both people and businesses in a libertarian environment would be compelled to work hard. When analyzing both investing and operating in the business world, libertarians would again see opportunities to be highly based on intelligent choices. In the business world of a libertarian, remaining adaptive to the ever changing free market is another key to success aided by a fierce understanding of supply and demand. People and businesses would create their own destiny and their own success, never based on a safety net or how others must aid them.

In a libertarian society, people could do as they please, without others, such as government officials, making decisions for them. We would eliminate the population of people feeding through moral cannibalism, described by Hobbes as “A moral cannibal is one who believes he has a right to live off the ‘spirit’ of other human beings who believes that he has a moral claim on the productive capacity, time, and effort expended by others.” A moral cannibal is what we know now as a mooch. Someone who doesn’t work hard but finds a way to succeed through the work of others.

In a libertarian society, moral cannibals would suffer from there being no public roads, no aid programs for those in need, no laws against discrimination, no public amenities, and the list goes on. The government would no longer be able to control the intake of drugs, alcohol, and detrimental foods. There would be no more publically run facilities for all to utilize. Instead, there would be an overall control by free market which is always controlled by the people. It would be up to the people to create a system for the people decided by the people.

In conclusion, restrictions and controls removed would result in a flourishing and prosperous free market, and an overall deserved human lifestyle. Hospers states: “It has become fashionable to claim virtually everything that one needs or desires as one's right” and he argues that if this is correct, on who’s dime are these apparent rights being fulfilled? We are responsible for ourselves and for our decisions that lead us to success or failure. With libertarianism, people would finally be able to truly and fully assume those responsibilities. libertarians most see the value in being free and doing as they please with their life, liberty, and property. It seems people would begin to be more careful and responsible if they are provided the expectation to do so. Libertarianism provides such expectation and therefore libertarianism would find a way to prosper.