Theories of Justice

Last week, lefty economist Max Sawicky linked a fascinating site devoted to different conceptions of distributive justice. You can observe changes in various economic and social indicators in different countries over time, read about competing theories of distributive justice, take a quiz to determine the theory with which you have the most affinity, compare your own views to those of other visitors, and even construct your own ideal society by playing the distributive justice "game." (So far, the minimal state is the second-least popular alternative: It fares better than strict egalitarianism but not as well as communism.) The characterization of the alternatives in the game strikes me as a bit loaded, as well as embodying some definite assumptions about which personality traits count as "deserved", but it's pretty interesting nevertheless.

Comments

[Phil]

He only talks about "distributing" money, and stuff money can buy -- not about health, sex, power, or any of the other stuff that can be distributed. For instance, he talks about distributing the necessities of life -- food, shelter, clothing -- to those who don't have it by taking away from those who don't. But why doesn't he ask the same question about kidneys or political power?

[Jason Ligon]

Okay, I poked around a bit. I came up as a Meritocrat in one profile but with Minimal State preferences in distribution.

The questions are stacked against the minimal state concept. The questionnaire asks us to distribute wealth as we deem fair. This is an impossible task, because only the market knows what is fair.

Also, in the build you own society model, it is not at all clear that you are signing up for a meritocracy that does not acknowledge the validity of inherited wealth when you prioritize things in a certain way. When I finished, I had Minimal State tendencies, but slightly more Meritocratic ones (probably because I believe in public support for the mentally ill and the like, to a certain extent). Under the description of mertocracy, it then informes me that I don't believe in inheritance. Seems to be a problem there.

Lastly, the language struck me as designed to convince everyone they are a moderate liberal (as all wise men are). "As much happiness as you can afford" is one option that flags you as a minimal state type, for example, but that doesn't really follow in my book.

[Nielsen Fan Club]

Could they have possibly made this site more difficult to navigate? Worst piece of crap I've seen on the web in months.

[Plutarck]

How about time and work? Does it talk about distributing time and work? By "Time" I mean "free time", "do whatever you want time", "leisure time" - that sort of thing.

Wealth is simply one good amongst many, money one thing to choose amongst countless others. Considering it in isolation of this simple fact, that choices must be, and in fact can only be, made relative to available alternatives, would seem to be of no real consequence; it would be like saying "OK, we know the world works absolutely nothing like this and never will, but let's just pretend anyway". Eck, flash back to some classical economics there.

[Evilcor]

It said I was closest to "Dworkin". I was really scared until I found out WHICH Dworkin (not Andrea, whew!).
Seems rather biased, though.

[joe]

minimal states. Pharonic Egypt? Roman Empire? British Empire? Imperial Japan?

[joe]

Hovig, the site wasn't about "redistribution." It was about distribution, including the institutions and practices set up to allow for the initial accumulation of wealth.

You seem to buy into a false dichotomy, in which there is morally pure "acquisition" that occurs without any social or political influences, and morally debased "redistribution" that involves the government. Well, it doesn't work like that.

[joe]

...one of the sign of which, of course, is the failure to sufficiently sing the praises of OUR NATION.

[Will Wilkinson]

A fundamental problem with the quiz as I see it is in the questions that ask about providing social services "at the expense of others" without clarifying the mechanisms of distribution. I have no problem with providing things at others' expense, as long as this is voluntary. But I do have a problem with coercive expropriation and redistribution. This totally biases the operative notion of equality in the quiz. All liberals are egalitarians of one stripe or other. I happen to be egalitarian about the distribution of coercive authority. But the quiz is, without justification, focused soley on material distribution. So there is no recognition that coercive redistribution, in the name of material equality, creates new, and to my mind even more troubling, inequalities in the distribution of coercive power.

Furthermore, the way they deal with distributive justice is too abstract to be useful, in the way that most political philosophy is too abstract to be useful. There is an implicit assumption of zero transaction costs in the identification of morally relevant inequalities, in the coercive collection of resources, and in the adminstration and distribution of goods. But there are enormous transactions costs at each step. Thus, although one might approve of a certain scheme of redistribution in a fanciful context of zero transactions costs, once those costs are fully figured in, the resulting picture of society may well look less desirable than the status quo, or some much less ambitious scheme of distribution. Because we don't live in a zero transaction cost world, our intuitions about justice in such a world are largely irrelevant, and thus so is this quiz.

[Jason Ligon]

Joe,

'Hovig, the site wasn't about "redistribution." It was about distribution, including the institutions and practices set up to allow for the initial accumulation of wealth.'

The problem was that it indicated repeatedly what a 'fair' distribution 'should' be. This implies direction. The answer by a minimal state type is that you can't look at the outcome to determine what is fair. The said distribution, but they quizzed redistribution.

[joe]

Jason, think of the questions about funds spent to provide equal opportunity and access, such a school funding. Unless you're going so far as to call that "redistribution," then you have to admit that the test quizzed both.

Even a minimal state type would agree that a society in which education (and, therefore, access to good jobs) is available to a wealthy few does not allow for the fair distribution of goods. That's why minimal state types tend to support having the government collect taxes, and give checks to parents for school tuition.

[Jason Ligon]

Joe,

There is no question that funds collected by taxes and spent to fund public education in any form is redistributive.

This reinforces my point. A society in which education is only available to a wealthy few could only come about as a result of regulation. To argue, as the quiz did, that this is the result of minimal government ideology is misleading.

[R.C. Dean]

Even a minimal state type would agree that a society in which education (and, therefore, access to good jobs) is available to a wealthy few does not allow for the fair distribution of goods.

It depends why "education" (whatever that is) is available only to the wealthy. If education is defined available only to the wealthy as a result of various state-enforced limitations (on who can be wealthy or on who can be educated), then I would say that this is not a fair distribution of "goods." I would not that education is not a "good," as I understand the term to refer to material goods, as in goods and services, but whatever.

If there are no state-imposed limits on who can be wealthy (other than the usual laws against force, fraud, extortion, etc.) or who can be educated, then I fail to see the "unfairness" in a society where education is expensive, that is, where lack of wealth is the only barrier to being educated. Who, exactly, is being unfair to whom in such a society, and how does "fairness" dictate that they act differently?

How is the "good" of education different from any other "good" or service which is expensive (i.e., available only to the wealthy)? Is it unfair that Jerry Seinfeld can afford an enormous climate-controlled garage full of fabulous cars and I cannot?

This particular example seems to rest on an unexamined assumption that we all have an inherent right to be educated, if necessary at other people's expense. I would be interested to know where that right came from.

[joe]

'How is the "good" of education different from any other "good" or service which is expensive (i.e., available only to the wealthy)? Is it unfair that Jerry Seinfeld can afford an enormous climate-controlled garage full of fabulous cars and I cannot?'

Because the quality of education one received determines, to a large degree, the opportunity one has to acquire goods, security, political power, health, and quality of life. Jerry's cars are just things, and have no bearing on his future prospects.

You've crossed the line from arguing against equality of outcomes, to arguing against equality of opportunity.

[packard aaron]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://linux-shell-account.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/19/2004 08:18:57
You know what's interesting about Washington? It's the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature.