Equality of Opportunity vs. Property Rights and Different Understandings of Property

Rawls' two principles of justice call for equal liberties and a fair distribution of wealth. The fair distribution calls for the maximization of the fortune of the least fortunate. Rawls does not include property rights as one of the principles of justice.

Nozick explains the ways one can acquire property rights: One is entitled to property when they are the original proprietor of it or if the rights to the property are consensually transferred to them from the rightful owner of the property. To Nozick, there are no other ways to obtain property. Taxation that goes beyond paying for protection of rights is not justified as it is a non-consensual transfer of property rights. 

This conception of property rights is incompatible with Rawls' second principle of justice. The level of taxation necessary to uphold the principle would exceed the level necessary to protect property rights. Therefore, one who considers property rights to be fundamental must believe that Rawlsian redistribution is a violation of property rights. Essentially, you cannot believe in Rawls' second principle and also believe that property rights are fundamental. One calls for the violation of the other. 

I would also like to note that the veil of ignorance presupposes an understanding of property that is radically different from the libertarian understanding. Rawls holds that distribution of wealth at birth is random and arbitrary. Since we are all equal, we have an equal right to equality of opportunity. Thus, we have an equal right to a fair distribution of property. We realize this behind the veil of ignorance because we know that we could be the victims of the arbitrary distribution of resources. This example presupposes that everybody has an equal right to the property that exists. Thus, we assume a collective right to all the property that exists behind the veil.

Libertarians think this is unjust because it ignores an original property owner's right to choose who owns his property. If you uphold this right, the original owner can transfer his property to whomever, including his child. Thus, while the distribution at birth is random, it is not arbitrary to the libertarian. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more