libertarian and utilitarian theories

Question one
There is a diametrical difference Libertarian and utilitarian. The Utilitarian is essentially concerned with the advancement of the human welfare stating that the society is supposed to be arranged in any fashion that achieves the best results in the society through a gigantic reorganization of wealth to the poor. On the other hand, the libertarians are of the opinion that the existence of the free market should be inherent and redistributive taxation violates the rights of property of the citizens. The theories differ in the temporal perspectives since the libertarian entitlement theory stipulates that justice should be a purely historical matter and is dependent on the way it came about while utilitarianism is purely forward-looking since justice is evaluated on the resultant consequences to benefit all people (Frederiksen, 2010).
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that encourages as little as possible with the citizens. The Utilitarian is concerned with moral theory stressing that the right thing should be done to result to the most utility. Therefore, the utilitarian’s maybe libertarians but not vice versa but there is nothing the formally connect them to one another.
There are incidences where a person can practice both libertarianism and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism doesn’t promote personal happiness since morality advocates for impartiality. Moreover, it doesn’t promote social happiness but to maximize it. At these scenarios, a person will find practicing libertarians personally to so as to feel happy and gain personal satisfaction to be happy.

Utilitarian is superior to libertarian since it is related to ensure that there is the promotion of the human welfare. It stipulates how people should be treated well making the history they hold irrelevant. The utilitarian is concerned with valuing the rights of the people which is an instrument for the greater good as opposed to the libertarian which focuses on personal gains.
Question three
The Republican views on abortion originate from the firm belief that the unborn child possesses a right to life which is not to be violated like any other individual in the country (Frederiksen, 2010). The party is of the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment of rights must apply to the unborn children. On the other hand, the Democrats maintain that abortion should be legal since it is part and parcel of a woman’s individual rights. Since the libertarians promote the liberty of an individual and try to reduce the role of the state towards an individual, they claim that non-aggression principles can be applied to the citizens from the point of conception thus the right to life applies to the fetus in the womb. The Democrats argue strongly that abortion is a woman’s resolution between the woman and the relatives, therefore, the politicians and government should not have any stance to meddle in the business.
The libertarian decision of the republicans is superior to that of the Democrats. The unborn child has a right to life which should not be violated. The rights stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendments should be upheld and be applied to the unborn. Moreover, supporting the stand of the Republicans will oppose the application of public revenues to carry out the process. Women with problem pregnancies should be supported in a special way except those whose condition is in a difficult condition. There should be measures to be undertaken to restrict undesired pregnancies and transmission of diseases. Therefore, there is a need to oppose school-based clinics that lead to abortion but the efforts to improve and foster health care.
References
Frederiksen, C. S. (2010). The relation between policies concerning corporate social responsibility (CSR) and philosophical moral theories–an empiricalinvestigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 357-371.