Difference between revisions of "The Entitlement Theory of Justice"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Cohen [42] points out that the term justice in transfer is ambiguous: it could mean that the step is a just action and/or it could mean that the step preserves the just status. This example provides steps that are just actions, but that clearly do not preserve the just status. (Cohen provides a complex example of a rolling pin accidentally being transferred: this one avoids the needs for accidents, and is based on just, deliberate actions.) | Cohen [42] points out that the term justice in transfer is ambiguous: it could mean that the step is a just action and/or it could mean that the step preserves the just status. This example provides steps that are just actions, but that clearly do not preserve the just status. (Cohen provides a complex example of a rolling pin accidentally being transferred: this one avoids the needs for accidents, and is based on just, deliberate actions.) | ||
| − | Ironically, Nozick's claim that "liberty destroys patterns" applies to his own theory of maintaining a pattern of justice. | + | Ironically, Nozick's claim that "liberty destroys patterns" applies to his own theory of maintaining a pattern of justice. That's what the bus example shows |
| + | |||
| + | Likewise, this failure of induction shows that scarcity of land causes the exact same failure to maintain justice according to the Lockean Proviso. As soon as there isn't "enough and as good" land (Locke's standard), the previously just situation requires a different explanation of why it may not be unjust now. Nozick does not address this. We can easily tell when "enough and as good" occurs: price for the value of land alone arises, because prices are symptoms of scarcity. | ||
== The Principle of Rectification == | == The Principle of Rectification == | ||
| − | The principle of | + | The principle of rectification is a "continuous inerference in people's lives" to compensate for unjust initial acquisition and unjust transfer and externalities. A glib way to sweep all the problems under the rug without having to measure their magnitude or ubiquity. But Nozick fails to consider injustice that can arise from correct application of his two steps, as shown in the bus example above. He only treats violations of those two steps. (152-153) This third case is enormous: all land ownership violates the Lockean Proviso because there is not enough and as good. It also makes the need for rectification much greater than Nozick recognizes. |
| + | |||
| + | In the bus example above, the rectification would be to yield your seat to the elderly person. For property, we already have some (insufficient) principles of rectification: they are called land taxes. | ||
== Missing Justice in Externalities == | == Missing Justice in Externalities == | ||
