Politics Information |
The Distributive Justice of the Market
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. " John Rawls, "A Theory of Justice", 1971, p.302 Resources are scarce. This is the basic, dismal truth of the dismal science. The second truth is that people consume resources. A basic existential anxiety makes them want more resources than they can consume (the "just in case" principle). This raises the question of fairness, a.k.a. "distributive justice". How should resources be allocated in a manner which will conform to one or more just principles? This apparently simple question raises a host of more complex ones: what constitutes a resource? what is meant by allocation? Who should allocate these resources or should this better be left to some Adam Smithean "invisible hand"? Such an invisible hand (working through the price mechanism) - should its mode of operation be guided by differences in power, in intelligence, in knowledge, in heritage? In other words: what should be the entitlement principle, how can it be determined who is entitled to what? Everything constitutes a resource: income, opportunities, knowledge, brute power, wealth. Everything, therefore, is subject to distribution to individuals (natural persons), groups of people, certain classes. There are many bases for distribution, but the issue is HOW JUST these bases are and how can we ensure that we are distributing resources using a just distribution base. We all face opportunities to acquire resources. In a just society, everyone is granted the same access to these opportunities. Access does not translate into ability to make use of it. Idiosyncrasies and differences between accessees will determine the latter, i.e. the outcome of such access. The ability to use is the bridge between the access and the accumulated resources. Given access and the capacity to utilize it - resources (material goods, knowledge, etc.) will accrue to the user. There is a hidden assumption in all this: that all men are born equal and deserve equal respect and, therefore equal treatment. This is not self evident. It would have been probably hotly disputed by the 16th century aristocracy. As late as 1930, Jose Ortega Y Gasset thought that people should be given access to resources in accordance with their lineage, up bringing and social responsibilities. The mere fact of biological and mental existence does not endow anyone with rights. Should we equally respect the ignorant and the scholar, the criminal and the virtuous, the atheist and the pious, the male and the female, the old and the young - different societies will have different answers. Should the material wealth of these people reflect the different respect that they receive from society, is it the best, most efficacious measure of this respect? Moreover: what index will be used to measure the "equality" between people if an egalitarian view is adopted (everyone should have the same)? Communism (a strict egalitarian idea) foundered exactly on these issues: equal respect and agreed index. It also failed in establishing realistic timeframes. The wish to implement strict egalitarianism here and now transformed communism into the hideous Stalinism that it became. One solution is to specify a "bundle" or "package" of goods, services and intangibles (like information or skills or knowledge). Everyone should have the same bundle and justice will be thus guaranteed. But will justice bring happiness and satisfaction in its wake? Not necessarily. During our life, we construct our own "bundle". It reflects our own preferences, priorities and predilections. None of us will be too happy with a standardized bundle, not selected by us. This is precisely where trade and the market come in. It allows for the exchange of goods and services between holders of identical bundles. If I like books, but detest oranges - I will give my oranges to someone else in return for his books. That way both of us will be better off than under the strict egalitarian version. Two problems become immediately evident: First, there is no guarantee that I will find my match: a person who is interested in swapping his books for my oranges. Granted, the bigger the market, the more likely I am to find my trading partner. Still, illiquid markets or small ones inhibit the scope of these exchanges. The second problem is that both participants still have to agree on an index: how many books will be given in exchange for how many oranges? This is the price of the oranges in terms of books. The problem is not solved - merely simplified - by the introduction of money. Money makes matters more convenient - but it does not eliminate the necessity to negotiate. Market failures abound. In other words: money is NOT an index. It is merely a medium of exchange. The index - AS EXPRESSED IN MONEY - is the underlying agreement regarding the relative values of resources in terms of other resources. Thus, indirectly, trading and the market are instruments of increasing happiness and welfare. The invisible hand is also a just and benevolent one. Money is a medium of exchange which increases happiness because it facilitates exchanges, makes life easier, increases our welfare by allowing us to get exactly what we want. We trade what we do not want, nor need - for what we both want and need. But money is imperfect. As Rawles has demonstrated (1971), it is incomplete when we attempt to measure intangibles and needs to be combined with other measures. For instance, how can we use it to measure opportunities? Some say that all people should have the same resources at some initial point (the "starting gate"). What they do with these resources and how they plunder or increase their wealth is their business. The initial distribution should be equal - the end distribution should depend on the use made of the resources and, ultimately, on the users themselves. More egalitarian thinkers proposed that income should be equal in each time frame. But this raises yet another problem: even if the income is identical, what determines the accumulation of wealth is the USE made of the income. An example: a person who would use up all his income (not to mention borrow against his future income) - will, inevitably, end up poorer than a person who saved some of the money for rainy days. Finally, relative disparities of wealth will emerge. What then? Should the excess wealth be confiscated in order to equalize their positions? Perhaps, a society-wide law should specify how much can be saved and how much must be expended? This would limit freedom, show no respect to people, involve coercion and worse, conflict with what people desire and deserve to have (conflict with free will and free choice or with the freedom of expression as well as with basic rights, like the right to be content). It is better to effect an egalitarian distribution of wealth through taxation and welfare payments. These are redistributive mechanisms which reset the "wealth clock" within every time frame (at the end of every month or fiscal year). Still, is there any moral difference between confiscating and expropriating savings outright - and doing it through elaborate state apparatuses like the tax system? Not really. The anti-tax movements do seem to hold some moral grounds. That part of the tax revenues that is distributed to the less well off could easily be portrayed as punitive: it punishes enterprise, success, entrepreneurship, courage, foresight and many other virtues. Welfare, on the other hand, partly seems to reward dependence and parasitism. We opened this article with Rawles' Difference Principle. For him, all the principles of justice are reducible to principles of distributive or retributive justice. This is far fetched. Many human activities are not income or money dependent. There are inherent inequalities between people which do not allow us to respect them equally. Moreover: what drives humans (and, maximizes the benefits to the least advantaged) is based on conflict and inequality. It is the same as in the physical world. Equality might motivate people in the short term. But than it atrophies and leads to social corruption and death. A useful lesson can be learned from the field of thermodynamics: an inequality of energy is required in order to generate motion and life. As energy dissipates and is equalized (a state of entropy) - all grinds to a halt and death prevails. A moral question does arise regarding natural inequalities. The mentally retarded, the mentally insane, the hemiplegic and quadriplegic, the chronically ill - did not choose to be so. Dworkin (1981) proposed a compensation scheme. First, he postulated a model of fair distribution. In this model, all of us are given the same purchasing power and use it to bid, in a fair auction, for resources that best fit our life plan, goals and preferences. We are then permitted to use these resources as we see fit and although we may end up with disparate economic results, we cannot complain: we were given the same purchasing power and we could have bid for any other resource that we might have needed. Dworkin assumes that prior to the hypothetical auction, people are unaware of their own natural endowments but wish (and are able) to insure against being naturally disadvantaged. Their payments will create an insurance pool to compensate the less fortunate for their misfortune. This scheme is, at best dubious. We are usually very much aware of our natural endowments and of the natural endowments and liabilities of others. Therefore, the demand for insurance is not unanimous and equal amongst us all. Some of us badly need and want it - others not at all. If such insurance were available and were traded between willing buyers and sellers (who willingly forego resources to pay for it) - no moral problem would have arisen. But if such insurance is imposed upon those who do not need it or wish it and covers those who, ab initio, gave up no resources and did not invest work or effort in obtaining it - it is immoral. Such insurance is bought and paid for with a restriction of our freedoms and liberties. This, in effect, is the essence of most of the modern welfare programs. This is not to mention the practical problem of how to measure differences in natural endowments, how to distinguish them from acquired ones and who will determine what should be included in the list of natural disadvantages. This is the philosophical basis of capitalism: that the market is wiser than any of its operators and participants. That humans do not need to bother themselves with constructing patterns of "just" distribution. That the market will reward justly those who deserve it (no matter which criterion for desert is used). Capitalism works, on the whole. Its truth value is substantiated by its continued existence and success. The Libertarians adopted this view of human inability to dispense with justice by establishing a just pattern of distribution. Instead of imposing a pattern on society, they limited themselves to ascertaining that the market players engage in just acquisitions and in just exchanges. The market is just if the exchanges permitted in it are just and just actions always result in just outcomes. Justice is not dependent on a particular distribution pattern, whether as a a starting point, or as an outcome. Robert Nozick proposed his "Entitlement Theory" in 1974 which was based on this approach. Still, one issue remained unresolved: the accumulation of wealth, ownership, why first owners should exclude others from owning the very same thing? What moral right to exclude others is gained from being the first? Nozick advanced the Lockean Proviso: an exclusive acquisition of the outside world is just only if, following it, there is "enough and as good left in common for others". If the position of others is not worsened by the acquisition - then it is morally permissible. But that their situation is not worsened - does not mean that it could not have been better in an alternative situation (distribution). There is no morally plausible and defensible justification of the Lockean Proviso. Exclusive ownership is the result of real-life irreversibility. The first has the advantage of excess information, has invested work, time, effort. All these are irreversible facts leading to an irreversible situation: ownership. The act of owning involves investments and the latter relate to the future. Thus, we encounter another information asymmetry: we know nothing about the future and everything about the past. This asymmetry is known as "investment risk". By taking on investment risk - the first owner attains ownership. Ownership is the compensation for investment risk, setting the asymmetry straight. The situation of the others is ALWAYS worse off by the amount of profits that the owner makes. Profits reflect inherent inefficiency, an intrinsic compensation. There is a law of conservation of benefits, the situation is always win-lose. A product or service could always have been sold to the "others" for a profitless, lower, price, thereby increasing their well-being. If we say, on the other hand, that ownership is the result of adding value to the world, of improving reality - it is only reasonable to expect it to equal all the value added which can be derived presently and in the future. Equipped with this understanding of both our shortcomings (we are unable to construct a just distribution pattern which will also be practicable) and of our abilities (to barter investment risk for exclusive ownership) - we embarked on the long road to mature, full bodied, capitalism. We are still not there: visionaries keep popping up with new just distribution patterns, governments keep intervening, incomes keep being redistributed, ownership keeps being contested. But these are phenomena of the past. As capitalism demonstrates its inexhaustible ability to increase well-being and the inexorability of this trend of increase becomes evident - the more inevitable the outcome. About The Author Sam Vaknin is the author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" and "After the Rain - How the West Lost the East". He is a columnist in "Central Europe Review", United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com
MORE RESOURCES: Unable to open template $TEMPLATEfilename, exiting |
RELATED ARTICLES
Globalization Often we see protests at the sites of global leader gatherings. Some complain Globalization is bad, that a one world currency is evil and that there is a huge conspiracy a foot to control all of mankind. Environmentalists Often Complain About GM Crops Maybe some of the people complaining ought to go to Africa and tell people to stop breeding like rats? Think of all the GM Crops can do for plastics, synthetic material and even for NASA since they are working with these R and D facilities to make organic materials with GM crops. All this special R and D is paid for by these companies due to the future promise of potential profits, but it is not without risk. Tracking Over The Road Trucks from Canada Are you happy with all this so-called security after 9-11? Are you like most Americans I have talked with okay with the color thing and High Security Alert Colors and although the media really gets on your nerves and you feel like you are living in a scene of "The Boy who Cried Wolf" most say there are some rather obvious things they have seen which are just dumb. For instance the other day I saw four guys get out of a semi truck at a truck stop to fuel up and then go park. The Second Coming in Albania Blessed with Chinese GDP growth rates (7-8% annually in each of the last 3 years) and German inflation (4%, down from 32% in 1997, mostly attributable to increases in energy and housing costs), it is easy to forget Albania's Somali recent past.In 1997, following the collapse of a series of politically-sanctioned pyramid schemes in which one third of the impoverished population lost its meager life savings, Albania imploded. Fundamentalist: Fascist or Common-Sense? Is the only way to fight Fundamentalist Extremists becoming one yourself? Having grown up in a liberal democracy, being educated in the ideals of freedom of speech and expression, diversity, multi-culturalism and the political correctness that stems from such a comprehensive education, I find myself questioning whether I am a closet fascist when it comes to the way in which the British Judiciary are referring to the whole issue surrounding the London suicide bombers of 7 July and the related legal news stories stemming from this.I cannot understand the logic of the British Judiciary in countering the British Government's call for the expulsion of a number of foreign nationals specifically identified as contributing to anti-British feeling amongst the Muslim community. The British Sikh Army Britain has a proud tradition of valiant armed forces and a capable military which has managed to defend these isles effectively for hundreds of years. British Military achievement is well known throughout the world and the bravery and versatility of its soldiers, seamen and airmen is unquestioned and forever stamped in history. FTC Fixing SPAM? Is the Federal Trade Commission really stopping SPAM? Is the FTC and all of our tax dollars doing any good reducing SPAM? Why do we even bother to pretend? Did the FTC assume that its publicity alone would scare the spammers into quitting? The FTC is quite arrogant in that case. They spent over a year having meetings trying to define what SPAM actually was; then when we ask for a progress report as the SPAM had increased they say: "We are working on it, we need to redefine SPAM. Think You Dont Need A License for A Wireless Microphone? Think Again Believe it or not, every theatre, church, or Britney Spears wannabe using a wireless microphone is supposed to have a license for it. No, I'm not making this stuff up. May Day, May Day Down The Bush and BlairBy now everyone, except us, is pissed and the party continues even though it's well past closing time. For as happens a few times a year in Britain it's a bank holiday tomorrow, an antiquated and wonderful excuse to turn Sunday into Saturday and Monday into Sunday, even though it's actually May Day (the first) today. Emerging Markets, Property Law I read an interesting article in foreign Affairs magazine last year, and recently in the Economist also. The articles stated in some way that a country without a set of laws for property rights would mean slow-growth, lack of foreign investment and economic vitality would be scarce. Why Do US Media Ignore Secret UK Government Memo On A Mega Iraq War Conspiracy? The blogosphere has been jumping around the story like crazy but it seems the mainstream media are doing their best to ignore it. Yet it's been branded the most extensive case of governing-level conspiracy plotting in ages. Enlightenment Experiments Pierre Dupont de Nemours:After arranging the Armistice that ended or settled outstanding issues after the Revolutionary War Pierre Dupont de Nemours came to join the Royals including the Hapsburgs who were living near Jefferson and other esoteric Merovingians in and around Delaware. He and his family became important armaments manufacturers and it is reasonable to remember what Eisenhower said in his Military-Industrial Complex speech. The G-8 and Other Figureheads The Presidents Before Washington:From the moment that the first Declaration of Independence in Mecklenburg, North Carolina took place (if not before) there were people leading the cause of American Independence. But the Presidents of the Continental Congress starting with Peyton Randolph should be considered as key figures in the history of this façade called America. CBM's Indo-Pak Peace Process Will a bus running across the borders bring cordial relations between the two south asian nuclear rivals India and Pakistan? Well this is a question that will look for its answer on it own and time can only find its answer.The first bus from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad was flagged off in the an auspicious ceremony in the presence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA president Sonia Gandhi. Bosnia - An Economy in Search of a State Bosnia-Herzegovina (heretofore "Bosnia") is an artificial polity with four, tangentially interacting, economies. Serbs, Croats and their nominal allies, the Bosniaks each maintain their own economy. The Elephant Roared and Brought Forth a Turd: A Case Against Democratizing the Middle East The original vulgarity was bylined: ?The Constipation of America's Mid-East Peace Policy!It is with some trepidation that I embark upon this discourse; for one, out of respect for elephants, but more so because within the American framework of democracy I have so greatly benefited. Thus, to liken the extension of America's efforts to democratize the civil administrations of Moslem states-even with the caveat "considering cultural sensitivities"-to the intestinal hardships of our beloved pacaderm is in itself cause for internal consternation, reflection, and a longing for interior relief. Did 9-11 Change Everything for the Business Community For the business community 9-11 changed everything. In our company, we are in the cleaning business and after 9-11 we saw 62. John Roberts - Supreme Court Nominee President Bush's selection of the Hon. John Roberts is an interesting choice. Transporting Troops in the Future Currently when we transport troops we use large cargo planes or put all the troops onto airliners or charter large Boeing Jet Airliners to send them near the battlespace, but in the future we will be able to put them to sleep, pack them into small honeycomb spaces and transport 1000 or more troops in cargo container type modules. Sounds inhumane? It isn't, let me explain why. The Black Flag Of Anarchy Rational, sober, logical citizens wonder what exactly the terrorists want. What purpose does it serve to fly planes into buildings, kill and maim police recruits by the hundreds, or blow up innocent commuters on mass transit? Such a question carries the assumption that there is a goal hidden beneath the madness. |
home | site map | contact us |