have claimedthat law creates a condition, a sociable atmosphere for the enjoymentof liberty, and therefore where law ends, tyranny begins and withouta disciplined life liberty has no meaning, society wants libertysince it is a genuine virtue, and only through law it can be achieved(1). The second option is largely argued in modern Economicsdiscourse as well as on current interpretations of utilitarian moraltheory, it seems to be a situation in which above the state there arethe giants of the ruling market, corporations. In this case the stateisn't sovereign, it is Imperialist since company owners are the oneswith power, and are the ones that make decisions based on a goal thatmost of the time is beneficial only to themselves, not to themajority of the population. This society is largely dependent oncapital generated by monopolist firms and freedom is what is preachedto be the most desirable right held by citizens in which independentof their culture, religion, social status and ethnicity they are seenas equal in the sense they are all self-interested individuals thatstrive for a never ending goal of attaining more and more capital;The right to freedom is seen as fulfilled, since the interpretationof it is one of people being self-determined in the sense that thestate dont interfere in individuals choices and capabilities,these individuals want to be left alone by the state, and governmentintervention isn't desirable, since individual liberty is society'smain goal. Which makes people see their individual achievements andmisfortunes as belonging only to themselves, they think they achievea high social status due to their own potentials, and that they arein poverty due to their laziness, but the fact is that differentlyfrom that, liberty shouldnt be a barrier and a separation of mendue to the possession of material wealth and individual potential,since social injustice is everywhere and people dont have the sameabilities to act due to lack of resources. Many other problems arisewith the Libertarian moral theory, since it doesn't account for humanrights, neither for other essential virtues other thanindividualistic liberty. A human rights perspective canbe seen in the article by Wiredu analysing the Akan society (2). Hedescribes that the definition of a person influences a lot the Akananalysis of politics and law, according to their culture people arevery interdependent one another from when we are born until we becomeelder. The degrees of an individual becoming a person is what makesavailable social status in the community and rights, which accordingto Wiredu involved duties and obligations to self, household andcommunity; the more obligations more of a person an individual wasconsidered. I agree with Wiredu that the Akan notions of humandignity and justice can be similar to those expressed inInternational human rights standards, since they are all related inthe sense that these virtues are essential for any individual toflourish and to achieve their potentials and accomplishments, theyare also both grounded in moral rights, which are ethical principlesheld and desired by all human beings. The Akan concept of whatconstitutes an individual gives room to many other virtues thattogether construct an ideology of reciprocity and of equal rights,since it is a communal/tribal way of seeing society instead of aindividualistic