ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/04/85)
You have said: > Since I do not agree with the assumption > that the outcome of the market == social justice, I do not agree that > the Libertarians primary concern is social justice. Tell me, Tim: what is social justice?
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/05/85)
> You have said: > > > Since I do not agree with the assumption > > that the outcome of the market == social justice, I do not agree that > > the Libertarians primary concern is social justice. > > Tell me, Tim: what is social justice? Glad you asked that question! Basically I agree with John Rawles' use of the social contract positions of John Locke (who was the primary influence on our own esteemed Thomas Jefferson) in "A Theory of Justice". Rawles' argues that Justice is that society or institutional arrangement all would agree to if they do not know what their own position will be in that system. While this position promotes the basic principle of equality it also allows inequality *if such inequality makes everyone better off*. Further it also promotes equality of opportunity-if I don't know what my own position may be besides wanting equal positions in themselves I am also likely to want to have a very good chance to attain various positions. In this theory of justice it is rather difficult to justify the market simply on the basis that its outcomes are necessarily "just". In fact the outcomes of the market are *often* unjust: for example the miners treatment in Rockefeller's company town when the company store had a monopoly on local goods, wages were poor, workers were subjected to cruel and arbitrary punishments by foremen could hardly be considered "just". On the other hand, that does not mean that markets are necessarily unjust either. In fact, if the use of markets increases the standard of living for everyone (which they often do: do not think that I am absolutely opposed to markets) then it would seem that everyone is better off and that such a situation satisfies Rawles criteria of Justice. But the consideration of Justice comes *prior* to arguments for the market. To the extent that the market leads to situations in which' some people have nothing while others have a great deal then such situations are *unjust*. And if I don't know what my position will be: pauper or tycoon, then I am likely to reject such a social order. This principle further has the advantage that it is flexible and general: while it can be applied to any situations or societies, determining its concrete application depends on the actual facts in a given case. Does the Somoza family's ownership of 70% of the land in Nicaragua make everyone better off? I would posit that as extremely unlikely but it is something which can be examined empirically. I hope that even Libertarians see the "justice" of this proposed standard of justice! tim sevener whuxl!orb