Under Canadian law, citizens and legal residents of Canada must be hired first. This means that foreigners can still be hired, just so long as the institution or business can show that no Canadian citizens or residents within the applicant pool are qualified for the position.

An implication here is that it is illegal for a company to bring over a cheaper foreigner to fill, say, your own job, and require you to train that person before you leave. Right now, this is perfectly legal in the US and happens pretty regularly (a glaring form of alienation) but not in Canada, which has much stronger labor protections.

Do you agree with such a policy? If so, do you think the US should adopt a similar one? Justify your answer with respect to justice theory, namely, Rawls or libertarianism.

The Libertarian View of Liberty

Libertarianism clearly involves a commitment to leaving market relationsbuying, selling, and other exchangestotally unrestricted. Force and fraud are forbidden, of course, but there should be no meddling with the uncoerced exchanges of consenting individuals. Not only is the market morally legitimate, but any attempt to interfere with voluntary and nonfraudulent transactions between adults will be unacceptable, even unjust. Thus, libertarians are for economic laissez faire and against any governmental economic activity that interferes with the marketplace, even if the point of the interference is to enhance the performance of the economy.

It is important to emphasize that libertarianism's enthusiasm for the market rests on this commitment to liberty. By contrast, utilitarians who defend an unregulated market do so on the ground that it works better than either a planned, socialist economy or the sort of regulated capitalism with some welfare benefits that we in fact have in the United States. If a utilitarian defends laissez faire, he or she does so because of its consequences. If we convinced a utilitarian that some other form of economic organization would better promote human well-being, the utilitarian would advocate that instead. With libertarians this is definitely not the case. As a matter of fact, libertarians typically agree with Adam Smith that unregulated capitalist behavior best promotes everyone's interests. But even if, hypothetically, someone like Nozick were convinced that some sort of socialism or welfare capitalism would outperform laissez-faire capitalism economicallyleading, say, to greater productivity, a shorter workday, and a higher standard of livinghe or she would still reject this alternative as morally unacceptable. To tinker with the market, however beneficial it might be, would involve violating someone's liberty.

Libertarians say that their commitment to an unrestricted free market reflects the priority of liberty over other values. However, libertarians do not value liberty in the mundane sense of people's freedom to do what they want to do. Rather, libertarians understand freedom in terms of their theory of rights, thus building a commitment to private property into their concept of liberty. According to them, being able to do what you want does not automatically represent an increase in your liberty. It does so only if you remain within the boundaries set by the Lockean rights of others. Likewise, one is unfree or coerced only when one's rights are infringed.

Libertarians build a commitment to private property into their concept of liberty.

Imagine, for example, that having purchased the forest in which I occasionally stroll, the new owner bars my access to it. It would seem that my freedom has been reduced because I can no longer ramble where I wish. But libertarians deny that this is a restriction of my liberty. My liberty is restricted if and only if someone violates my Lockean rights, which no one has done. Suppose ...