| Abstract [eng] |
The article analyses the attitudes of modern libertarianism (F. Hayek, R. Nozick, J. Narveson) and its predecessors (J. Locke, A. Smith) to the problem of social justice. The Market symbolizes basic premises of libertarianism: a) productivity of commerce self-interest, b) an organic identity between private property and freedom, c) conceptual individualism. Conclusion, based on those premises, is that simple, commutative (making correction) justice only demands to undo any damage to other members of human society. Following these conditions enables peaceful collaboration among people. Meanwhile, the principle of social justice demands to divide material wealth among the society members according to the criteria of their moral merits or economic rights. The libertarians argue that it is impossible in the free society due to the following: 1) people attach different significance to different merits, 2) the connection between values of payments and merits is accidental, 3) the universal scale of merits, for instance, in accordance with work, could be applied at the expense of human rights. The tribal origin of social justice is found by the libertarians. They claim that hunting for social justice in welfare states (also in Lithuania) has laid foundations for “workers’ ideology”– populism. As a result of populist politics, the states suffer from corruption, wasting of the budget resources and demagogic rhetoric. The libertarians do not claim having a universal key to solve all... [to full text]. |
