Difference between revisions of "The Entitlement Theory of Justice"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Perfection of the original situation and the steps is required. Just initial situations are required (an impracticality.) And a demonstration of perfect justice-maintainance of the steps is required: a step may be just without maintaining justice. (This is a big problem: he's making an inductive argument without showing the critical step.) But worse, in real life we can't ever have perfect justice of steps or starting situations. So the question is whether the steps move us closer or further from justice, and where an equilibrium will be reached (if one exists.) The Nozick statement has an implied binary logic model which real life doesn't match. Nozick provides neither, and thus gives us only an illusion of a valid argument. So why is he using the form of mathematical induction? | Perfection of the original situation and the steps is required. Just initial situations are required (an impracticality.) And a demonstration of perfect justice-maintainance of the steps is required: a step may be just without maintaining justice. (This is a big problem: he's making an inductive argument without showing the critical step.) But worse, in real life we can't ever have perfect justice of steps or starting situations. So the question is whether the steps move us closer or further from justice, and where an equilibrium will be reached (if one exists.) The Nozick statement has an implied binary logic model which real life doesn't match. Nozick provides neither, and thus gives us only an illusion of a valid argument. So why is he using the form of mathematical induction? | ||
| − | Nozick simulates mathematical induction (and uses the word induction), without meeting the requirements. | + | Nozick simulates mathematical induction (and uses the word induction), without meeting the requirements. His real trick is concealing an assumption: if something is just at time A, then it is just for all time. The Lockean proviso means that if you re-evaluated justice in acquisition at a later time, something that is just now may not be just later. I could justify acquisition a piece of land now when there is enough and as good left, but not rejustify acquiring the same land later when there is not enough and as good left. He needs that trick in order to simulate mathematical induction. In computing, we talk about when evaluation occurs in getting a result, because you will get different results with different times and orders of evaluation. Nozick wants to stack the results in his favor by silently assuming one evaluation in the past applies to all future times. |
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.) | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
interference with people: the whole system of property rights. A system of | interference with people: the whole system of property rights. A system of | ||
periodic taxation is trivial compared to the continual, omnipresent duties of forbearance that other people's property impose on us. I cannot walk there | periodic taxation is trivial compared to the continual, omnipresent duties of forbearance that other people's property impose on us. I cannot walk there | ||
| − | because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners | + | because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners with an adequate payment. Denying this is a pattern maintained at a cost of huge expense and interference is ridiculous. |
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
nd as good" afterwards. Whenever price appears, there is not as much or as good | nd as good" afterwards. Whenever price appears, there is not as much or as good | ||
. | . | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nozick, Justice, and the Sorites (Jstor) | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
