Utilitarianism and Libertarianism on the Redistribution of Resources
When it comes to the government, the president, and their cabinet tries to govern the United States in the best way that he or she can; however, it’s understood by some that this individual can not please every citizen. For instance, in the United States, there is a huge income gap between the rich and the poor. Many individuals feel like the government should try to redistribute some resources to the poor; however, others disagree with the methods to reduce the gap. The government tries it’s best to minimize individuals from suffering for trying to maximize other individual’s happiness. In this situation, only one can win unfortunately pertaining to the income gap. Even though having government intervention with redistributing resources can cause more problems than there was before; the government should redistribute resources to the poor because it helps the poor get better access to resources such as education, healthcare and it reduces the gap between the wealthy and the poor. …show more content…
In the U.S. individuals that are low income struggle to survive keeping up with the increase in the living standard. For instance, prices are going up every year; however, their wages are not moving. Over the years, the gap between the rich and the poor is drastically increasing, this is why individuals feel that resources should be redistributed to the poor. This paper will focus on comparing and contrasting the Utilitarianism and Libertarianism view on the redistribution of resources to the poor.
Individuals that have Utilitarianism views wants to maximizes utility, which means they want to maximize greatest number of happiness in society. The government has the power to maximize the utility for all individuals in the U.S. Mills states, that “ the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Redistributing resources will maximize the greatest happiness for individuals that suffer from shortage of resources, which in fact is a large proportion of citizens in the U.S. Government officials can create policies that help the underprivileged and keep the wealthy happy if the greatest happiness principle can be applied to all. For instance, the government can offer other incentives that are not tax write off to maximize the wealth utility. By creating more social welfare programs for those that are unable to make ends meets it can help change a community or even a society. This means reallocating resources to fund these programs can come from the increase in taxes with the wealth or just limiting so many tax breaks the wealthy can get. For instance, it recently came out the the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald trump has not paid taxes for almost eighteen years because of the tax breaks he was given from the government. It’s understandable if individuals were getting tax breaks from given generous contributions to charities; however, his tax break came from him losing almost a billion because of bad investments. According to Mill, “ all actions is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient.” The end goal is to maximize the utility for a better standard of living for those that are underprivileged. For instance, redistribution of resources can help parents and communities be able to have a better educational system and healthcare. In addition, send more underprivileged children to pursue higher education. This gives children from low-income families the ability to have the opportunity to compete with individuals that are financial stable when it comes to getting a good education. A good education can mean having the resources for children to have up to date textbooks, technology, after school programs, the opportunity to develop college ready programs and the means to acquire wealth. When Mill’s mentions that individuals should not “deprive any one of personal liberty, his property or any other things which belong to him by law”. Individuals that are poor are being deprived of their personal liberty to have the means to own property. Mills’ mentions that “it is universally considered just
When it comes to the government, the president, and their cabinet tries to govern the United States in the best way that he or she can; however, it’s understood by some that this individual can not please every citizen. For instance, in the United States, there is a huge income gap between the rich and the poor. Many individuals feel like the government should try to redistribute some resources to the poor; however, others disagree with the methods to reduce the gap. The government tries it’s best to minimize individuals from suffering for trying to maximize other individual’s happiness. In this situation, only one can win unfortunately pertaining to the income gap. Even though having government intervention with redistributing resources can cause more problems than there was before; the government should redistribute resources to the poor because it helps the poor get better access to resources such as education, healthcare and it reduces the gap between the wealthy and the poor. …show more content…
In the U.S. individuals that are low income struggle to survive keeping up with the increase in the living standard. For instance, prices are going up every year; however, their wages are not moving. Over the years, the gap between the rich and the poor is drastically increasing, this is why individuals feel that resources should be redistributed to the poor. This paper will focus on comparing and contrasting the Utilitarianism and Libertarianism view on the redistribution of resources to the poor.
Individuals that have Utilitarianism views wants to maximizes utility, which means they want to maximize greatest number of happiness in society. The government has the power to maximize the utility for all individuals in the U.S. Mills states, that “ the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Redistributing resources will maximize the greatest happiness for individuals that suffer from shortage of resources, which in fact is a large proportion of citizens in the U.S. Government officials can create policies that help the underprivileged and keep the wealthy happy if the greatest happiness principle can be applied to all. For instance, the government can offer other incentives that are not tax write off to maximize the wealth utility. By creating more social welfare programs for those that are unable to make ends meets it can help change a community or even a society. This means reallocating resources to fund these programs can come from the increase in taxes with the wealth or just limiting so many tax breaks the wealthy can get. For instance, it recently came out the the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald trump has not paid taxes for almost eighteen years because of the tax breaks he was given from the government. It’s understandable if individuals were getting tax breaks from given generous contributions to charities; however, his tax break came from him losing almost a billion because of bad investments. According to Mill, “ all actions is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient.” The end goal is to maximize the utility for a better standard of living for those that are underprivileged. For instance, redistribution of resources can help parents and communities be able to have a better educational system and healthcare. In addition, send more underprivileged children to pursue higher education. This gives children from low-income families the ability to have the opportunity to compete with individuals that are financial stable when it comes to getting a good education. A good education can mean having the resources for children to have up to date textbooks, technology, after school programs, the opportunity to develop college ready programs and the means to acquire wealth. When Mill’s mentions that individuals should not “deprive any one of personal liberty, his property or any other things which belong to him by law”. Individuals that are poor are being deprived of their personal liberty to have the means to own property. Mills’ mentions that “it is universally considered just