Difference between revisions of "The Entitlement Theory of Justice"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 13: Line 13:
 
The least verbose version of his ETJ is:  "Whatever arises from a just
 
The least verbose version of his ETJ is:  "Whatever arises from a just
 
situtation by just steps is itself just." [Nozick 151]
 
situtation by just steps is itself just." [Nozick 151]
 +
 +
== What is justice anyhow? ==
 +
 +
Justice is not an objective part of our universe.  But that shouldn't bother Nozick much, who has already swallowed the camel of natural rights.  In real life, justice is an opinion.  Sometimes that opinion is guided by legal rules.  That's why ideas of justice vary as much as ideas of rights, and why they change as opinions change.  For the sake of simplicity, let's call those opinions memes (in the Dawkins sense.)  The population of memes will consist of many alleles: some perhaps saying justice is what god says, other that justice is democratic, etc.  These memes compete with each other, often resulting in legal codes that approximate the dominant memes.  But they also frequently come to different conclusions in judging particular circumstances.  Hence: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."  The memes held by the poor frequently have a different, conflicting idea of justice than the memes of the well-off.  Nozick attempts to introduce a new meme, his entitlement theory of justice, which has the same problem of non-universality: entitlement theory, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to pee in the privately owned streets (without paying), to sleep under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and to coerce bread from its rightful owners!  Nozick's theory is class-oriented, will privilege some over others, and is hardly universal.
  
 
== Justice in Acquisition ==
 
== Justice in Acquisition ==
 +
Fameously, Nozick fails to give an account of justice in acquisition, though he does discuss Locke's. [174]
 +
 
Justice in acquisition tends to ignore opportunity cost: there is not "as much and as good" afterwards.  Whenever price appears, there is not as much or as good.
 
Justice in acquisition tends to ignore opportunity cost: there is not "as much and as good" afterwards.  Whenever price appears, there is not as much or as good.
  
Nozick does consider a few examples of violations of his idea due to the Lockean
+
Nozick does consider a few examples of violations of his idea due to the Lockean proviso.  [178]  But these all consider only justice in terms of baseline conditions in cases of extreme monopoly examples such as water holes in the desert.  He does briefly touch on the possibility of monopoly being arrived at by just transactions.  To salvage his theory, he invents the "historical shadow of the Lockean proviso on appropriation." [180]  This attributes all the fault to the initial acquisition being imperfectly just, and protects his notion of justice maintenance.  Then he says "I believe that the free operation of a market system will not actually run afoul of the Lockean proviso."  [182]  So any problems would come from faulty initial acquisition, and mightn't happen anyway.  Ah, the airtight logic of the ivory tower!
proviso.  [178]  But these all consider only justice in terms of baseline
+
 
conditions in cases of extreme monopoly examples such as water holes in the
+
To make matters worse, Nozick's theory would require recognition that essentially all existing real property is unjust: it all is based on conquest.  There is no land ownership in recorded history that hasn't been acquired by conquest or from conquerors. See Nina Paley's "This Land Is Mine" for an example.  Even in Iceland, where the Papar and probably the Inuit were displaced.
desert.  He does briefly touch on the possibility of monopoly being arrived at
+
by just transactions.  To salvage his theory, he invents the "historical shadow
+
of the Lockean proviso on appropriation." [180]  This attributes all the fault
+
to the initial acquisition being imperfectly just, and protects his notion of
+
justice maintenance.  Then he says "I believe that the free operation of a
+
market system will not actually run afoul of the Lockean proviso."  [182]  So
+
any problems would come from faulty initial acquisition, and mightn't happen
+
anyway.  Ah, the airtight logic of the ivory tower!
+
  
 
== Justice in Transfer ==
 
== Justice in Transfer ==
 
Nozick is much lauded for the clever application of induction in his principle of justice in transfer.
 
Nozick is much lauded for the clever application of induction in his principle of justice in transfer.
  
Fameously, Nozick fails to give an account of justice in acquisition, though he does discuss Locke's. [174]  At least as important though, is the fact that Nozick does not make any demonstration that justice in transfer works.   
+
Just as Nozick fails to give an account of justice in acquisition, Nozick does not make any demonstration that justice in transfer works.   
  
You pay busfare and board a bus.  You sit in the last seat, which is marked
+
You pay busfare and board a bus.  You sit in the last seat, which is marked "Give up this seat to the elderly."  At the next stop, an elderly person pays busfare and boards the bus.  The elderly person wants the seat he is entitled to, but cannot take it because you occupy it.
"Give up this seat to the elderly."  At the next stop, an elderly person pays
+
busfare and boards the bus.  The elderly person wants the seat he is entitled
+
to, but cannot take it because you occupy it.
+
  
So what?  Well, justice is not maintained: you need to get up and allow the
+
So what?  Well, justice is not maintained: you need to get up and allow the elderly person to take the reserved seat.
elderly person to take the reserved seat.
+
  
 
Let's look at what happened.
 
Let's look at what happened.
Line 56: Line 50:
 
The basic problem is that Nozick has pulled a fast one.  He identifies [151] his theory as inductive, but it's not the frequently fallaceous logical induction of "all swans are white".  It's an illusion of mathematical induction.
 
The basic problem is that Nozick has pulled a fast one.  He identifies [151] his theory as inductive, but it's not the frequently fallaceous logical induction of "all swans are white".  It's an illusion of mathematical induction.
  
Mathematical induction has two steps: a base step that shows an initial condition to be true, and an inductive step that shows that the next condition from a true condition will also be true.  Nozick's base step is justice in acquisition, and his inductive step is justice in transfer.
+
Mathematical induction has two steps: a base step that shows an initial condition to be true, and an inductive step that shows that the next condition from a true condition will also be true.  Nozick's base step is justice in acquisition, and his inductive step is justice in transfer. 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.  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.
 
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.

Latest revision as of 14:36, 25 February 2021