After a long while of class time, and thinking about the different means of distributive justice, I have come to a small but I feel important personal solution. I feel that, in a world where one person has billions of dollars, and in the same society that there are people who cannot afford even to eat, that this is unjust. I don’t think anyone (except maybe the person who has the “diamond tweezers case (-Smith))” would see this as fair, or just in any way. I definitely do that that those people should be able to eat, but at the same time I don’t think that the wealthy person, no matter how wealthy, should be subjected to the redistribution of his funds if they are acquired justly.
I think this is the reason that it is of the up most importance to inspect the work of Robert Nozik. Of course, you have all been in class with me so you know the principle behind Nozik’s ideas. But, in case you don’t here is a recap. 1.there must be justice in acquisition. 2. There must be justice in transfer. 3. When ether one of these rules is broken there must be some type of system to rectify the injustice done.
Therefore if the government took money from its people in the form of taxation in order to redistribute this money, this would be an unjust acquisition, and the second of nozkis rules would be broken, and this injustice must be rectified. This poses a problem obviously. Without taxation government cannot run and essentially would break down into anarchy. Where upon at this point the law of the land would become simply who ever was the wealthiest.
However, I also believe that the government should provide basic needs for the people like, roads, protection, and water, just to name a few. But, the problem is that to provide these things the government must take taxes from its people. I mean lets face it; taxes are only used to provide people with the things they cannot afford. For example rich people have no trouble buying anything they want. The government collects taxes from these people so that the government gives them the people that cannot afford them on their own. Nozik would say that the acquisition in this case is unjust, but from a moral standpoint it is very just so here we have a quandary. To me it seems that a minimax rule (like Rawls) coupled with the laws of Nozik would make for a very interesting system.
The Minimax Rule though often can be diametrically opposed to Nozik's laws and that is usually where the two philosophers differ. The Minimax Rule is what is employed to justify taxation. It is a just measure to provide an advantage to the disadvantaged. Nozik on the other hand clearly would claim it is an unjust acquisition. The two cannot work together. The two philosophies are popular because Rawls describes what most in our society would view as just at a systemic level and Nozik describes what most would view as just in individual dealings
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about taxes. There has to be some social structure to help the poorest of poor. Too call that structure "unjust" because it uses taxes for aiding the poor is ridiculous (so I have problems with Nozik's philosophy on distributive justice)
ReplyDeleteif the wealthiest are able to reap the benefits of the free market system, they should contribute to the greater society for those who cannot afford to put food on the table or to heat their homes. That isn't unjust. It's just the opposite
My biggest problem with Nozick is that he doesn't leave much (if any) room for a moral philosophy. His theory of distributive justice is clearly defined and is a system in which it is difficult to right injustices. I agree with Thomas that it isn't right to call a system that uses to taxes to help the poor "unjust".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Guy that Nozick and Rawls' philosophies could not be very easily combined, and in the end I feel more compelled by Rawls.