as ifthat would make them a higher category of a person. Therefore theystrive to work even more in order to buy the goods that the moreprivileged people own, but this purchasing power isn't the nature ofthe problem of their disregard as individuals, rather it becomes astronger control from the ruling class over them, since they workeven more and continue to suffer negligence even when owning the moreexpensive commodities. This clearly show that individuals of thelower class dont have freedom of choice when buying commodities,since they are heavily influenced by the higher class in theirchoices and desires. For Marx moral concerns thepersonal sphere, there is no way to live morally in a world that hasnot yet established the order of social justice. A Social justice canstill be libertarian and democratic like the one that rulesInternational order nowadays, but it would have to insure theprotection of the less privileged or the class that don't achievetheir potentials due to inequality of land and capital distribution.These could be done if a principle that generated a general happinessbased on human rights took place, but this principle can't depend oncapital, instead it must hold capital as an opportunity of actionthat was created in order to make our lives easier instead ofdividing us. The author Wiredu (2) describes a society that waslibertarian and democratic, since individuals could act based ontheir own will and potential, their actions werent controlled byan authoritative government, instead a person could achieve moreinfluence over the collective life depending on how much of a personit become. But the Akan society is a modern libertarian, since stateintervention is supported to help the ones that lack resources. Thegovernment could interfere in the lives of the Akan individuals thatcouldn't reach their potential through redistribution, this aspect isvery important since land was of a very high value to the Akansociety, more than education, since land was what made labor possibleand consequently subsistence. Nowadays scholars argue that there is adifference between having a right from enjoying that right, in otherwords, if it is acknowledged by the government a right to freedom itdoesnt necessarily follow that people are going to be free, orthat freedom will be the same to all individuals in that society.This is a individualistic and unjust way of claiming a right, sinceif there is no enjoyment then there is no right, there is privilege.Liberal democracy is a democracy of rights and not of factualliberty, formal and not substantial freedom, because it allows theelitism of power: only those that own land/capital have politicalpower, only the ones that are from the right nation with the rightamount of money are able to fully enjoy rights. Another Rightsscholar, JoelFeinberg (4) arguesthat rights aren't the same as deserving the substance of the right,in this sense to deserve something or to work for something does notfollow that it will be factually enjoyed. Since Rights entail otherpeoples duties, and if the duty holder have more economic power thenthe right holder, it doesn't follow that the persons right will beprovided. Even though the second class citizen have the legal rightand deserve the substance of their right, if