3)On the theme of foreign aid, Jan Narveson adopts a libertarian perspective which revolves around a minimal state; that is, the state focuses solely on maintaining the freedom of its citizens. He considers three perspectives for helping others: the first is reparation, the second is aid, and finally the provision of aid to those in dire need (Narveson, 420). According to him, one can “feel” obliged to help; however, they have no enforceable obligation to do so. In short, enforceable duties are limited to respecting the negative space around other individuals. This negative freedom promotes a freedom free from any annoying external influence. Thus, a social contract produces duties, for example, individuals mutually undertake to respect each other's right to life and each individual in turn has a duty to refrain from harming others. Narveson considers the act of benevolence to be a general duty. General duties are imperfect and unenforceable duties. From his utilitarian perspective, Narveson encourages benevolence because the benefits resulting from the act exceed the costs of performing that act. In short, rational beings should use their charitable budgets so that they will reciprocate if they end up worse off in the future. There is no obligation; however, it is simply a rational approach to developing a social insurance system that promotes self-preservation. Furthermore, given this utilitarian position, costs are relevant when one voluntarily decides to help others. In short, this charitable budget involves weighing costs, including psychological costs, when considering potential future benefits. On the issue of helping the needy far away, Peter Singer argues for the adoption of a "...... middle of paper ...... a right to their property and no one else deserves that property other than the rightful owner. Finally, Singer's conclusion is quite radical; Giving away money will harm consumer societies, thus leading to the destruction of the economy. Now the idea of ​​giving money to the poor is doomed to failure, because the whole world will be worse off when the economy stops working. Although I agree slightly more with Narveson's position, it also contains some flaws. Narveson disregarded the World Bank, capitalist corporations, and historical colonial relationships that keep poor countries poor, in favor of manifesting the wealth of rich countries. Accordingly, Narveson's first point on reparation can be criticized given that rich countries actively participate in harming poor nations..