Ramon T. Conducto II Philo 198-Theories of Justice2009-30002 Atty. Prof. Renato Manaloto, M.A.BA Political Science September 1, 2011

Libertarian Reaction to the Philippine Conditional Cash Transfer Program

The short paper will be answering three issues pertaining to the Philippine Conditional Cash

Transfer Program (CCT). It is a poverty-reduction and “development program that uses giving of cash

grants to poor households based on compliance to verifiable conditions identified and agreed on by

household beneficiaries of the program.” (Pablo et al., 2009:4) Of course, the fund the Philippine

Government will be using is from the taxes.

Whether or not the Philippine CCT Program is compatible with libertarianism?

No. First and foremost, it automatically violates strict libertarianism since in order to be realized,

the CCT Program needs tax/taxation. Taxation violates two of libertarian rights: right to liberty and right

to property. Right to liberty is exemplified in their ‘thesis’: “Other men’s lives are not yours to dispose

of.” (Hospers in Sterba, 2003:24) Hospers in illustrating this ‘thesis’ even imposed a question analogous

with the structure/set-up of the CCT Program:

“Do you want to have free medical care at the expense of other people, whether they wish to provide it or not? But this would require them to work longer for you whether they want it or not, and other men’s lives are yours to dispose of…” (Hospers in Sterba, 2003:25)

Clearly, the program violates the people’s right to liberty [right to choose freely] whether or not

they would give a part of their earnings [through taxation] in order to support the CCT. To this extent,

this also violates the right to property:

“No human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another… The wealth that some mean 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…” (Italics, Bold, Underline added for emphasis. Hospers in Sterba, 2003:25).

The CCT because of the need for taxation to support it ‘robs’ people of their property and

violates their right to retain the fruits of their labor [right to property].

Second, the Program is a form of welfare because it is clearly operationalized by the government

and funded through taxation to give aid or service to citizens or a certain sector that benefits from it.

Thus in the strict libertarian sense, the CCT is not compatible with libertarianism because right to

welfare contradicts with the tenets of the libertarians. In supporting this statement, the paper will be

lifting from the argument of Tibor Machan.

The Lockean Libertarianism, which considers right to property the highest right, does not go well

with welfare since according to Machan to enforce welfare means to violate the right to property:

“A’s right to the food she has is incompatible with B’s right to take this same food… Both right to welfare and right to property is theoretically intolerable and practically unfeasible.” (Machan in Hospers, 2003:46)

Therefore, if both rights are contradicting, right to welfare cannot emanate from the Lockean’s

highest right, – right to property. More so, welfare cannot be argued under right to life since right to life

emanates from right to property. In the program this is seen in (1) the imposition of taxes to properties

and businesses in order to support the program; (2) to give the cash to those household beneficiaries

[those who are claiming right to welfare]. Meanwhile, the same case is true for the Spencerian

Libertarianism, which considers right to liberty as the highest right. Right to welfare violates the right to

liberty since the people who are being taxed are unable to choose freely where to put the fruits of their

labor. They are automatically taxed by the government to support the program. Finally, the CCT is

incompatible with libertarianism since the program is beyond the role of the government according to

the libertarians, since taxation and giving welfare are not one of them.

Whether or not the government is justified in imposing more taxes on, for example, business income

or sin goods like liquor, cigarettes, and PAGCOR games to fund the CCT Program?

No. In the strict libertarian sense, all taxation regardless what to be taxed and/or what will be

supported by taxes is not justified. Akin to the explanation to the preceding issue, taxation is in violation

of two of libertarian rights: right to liberty and right to property. “Other men’s lives are not yours to

dispose of.” And “No human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another… The

wealth that some mean 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 in Sterba, 2003:24-25) Clearly, in the eyes of strict libertarians taxation is a big no-no. Whether

it is on business income or sin goods is immaterial as long as it violates the people’s right to liberty [right

to choose freely whether or not they would give a part of their earnings] or right to property [right to

retain the fruits of their labor].

Furthermore, the government imposing more taxes in these sectors to support the CCT program

is not justified in strict libertarian sense since it would go beyond its roles. Libertarians argue that

government’s role is only confined to protect rights, the “retaliatory use of force against those who have

initiated its use…” (Hospers in Hospers, 2003:29) Therefore, the Philippine Government in imposing

taxes on such goods to support the CCT Program is unjustified.

Whether or not the libertarians would raise no objections to the program if it would be funded

instead by donations or grants from private individuals and institutions?

Yes. If the program will now be funded by donations or grants, it will now fall under charity and

not welfare. Since welfare “…is a provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all

citizens without the stigma of charity.” (Wikipedia, 2011) In other words, it is funded by taxation

[‘forced’ taking away of money by the government]. Meanwhile charity constitutes the free choice of

giving a proportion of your property or income to help the needy. If this is the case, libertarians would

raise no objections since it does not violate the right to liberty [right to choose and act freely and in fact

follows it] and right to property [right to retain the fruits of his labor] because a donation, grant, or

charity is a free act on the part of the individual [liberty] to give a portion of the fruits of his labor

[property]. Take note that under libertarianism, an individual has both the right to retain the fruits of his

labor and right to give it away if he willingly and freely chooses to. Therefore, an act of charity, donation,

or grant is not violative of libertarian rights since rights are only violated by the use of force. (Hospers in

Hospers, 2003:28)

Taxation uses force by automatically deducting your salary [without your consent] which goes

straight away to the national treasury. However, charity, donation, or grant does not use force since

voluntary relations between individuals involve no deprivation of rights. (Hospers in Hospers, 2003:28)

A man giving 1,400 pesos monthly to a certain indigent household involves no violation of rights if he

wanted to give that amount of money every month. Therefore, the paper would argue that libertarians

would raise no objections to this grant or donation-based set-up of the CCT Program. However, the

paper would also argue that the CCT Program would eventually fail if it would just depend on donations

since it will eventually lack funds. Thus, non-adoption of the program would also be the likely effect.

Bibliography:

________.“Welfare” in www.en.wikipedia.org 2011, accessed: August 29, 2011.

Hospers, John. “The Libertarian Manifesto” In Sterba, James.Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003.

Machan, Tibor. “The Nonexistence of Basic Welfare Rights.”In Sterba, James.Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003.

Pablo, Luwalhati F., Sampang, Margarita V., and Solloso, Ernestina Z. (2009). “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps): Conditional Cash Transfer Program Improving Human Capital investment of the Poor.” In Social Welfare and Development Journal, 3 (1), 2-10.