Redistributive Injustice

the AZEL PERSPECTIVE Commentary on Cuba's Future, U.S. Foreign Policy & Individual Freedoms - Issue 63

Share Tweet Forward

The images of indignation were everywhere- street protests in Greece, Italy, Spain, and, of course, our own occupy Wall Street movement. The underlying rationale for the indignation seems to be some amorphous concept of social justice and demands for redistributive policies by a redistributionist state. Since principles of distributive justice guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity, the subject is worth exploring beyond political platitudes and sound bites. In the early 1970’s, Harvard University professors John Rawls and Robert Nozick rigorously broached the topic from opposite points of view. Rawls, one of the major thinkers in the North American tradition of liberal political philosophy published “A Theory of Justice” in which he attempts to reconcile freedom and distributive justice by offering an understanding of “justice as fairness.” In his version of the social contract, parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice.  Rawls arrives at this conclusion deploying an artificial thought device he calls the “original position” in which individuals agree on principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance” that blinds people to all facts about themselves.  According to Rawls, ignorance of one’s assets (intelligence, abilities, and the like) would lead people to adopt a strategy that would maximize the prospects of the least well-off. He posits that we would all default to social and economic positions that maximize the prospects for the worst-off just in case we happen to find ourselves in that group. Rawls then develops his “Second Principle of Justice” under which social and economic inequalities are to be rearranged in some pattern (such as equality) so that they are of the greatest benefits to the least-advantaged members of society. This argument holds that individuals do not morally deserve their inborn talents and thus are not entitled to all the benefits they could possibly receive from employing their skills. Not so fast retorts fellow philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.”   Rawls’ proposition is morally arbitrary; natural endowments of talents break no law and do not violate anyone’s rights. Patterned principles of distribution are incompatible with liberty. The state would have to continually intervene with our freedoms in order to preserve any distribution pattern. Nozick underscores the Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means. Moreover, Nozick argues that “distributive justice” is a prejudiced term. It implies that some force (Providence, government, the market system, etc.) used some erroneous criteria to distribute goods. In Rawls’ view what has been distributed by these mechanisms must now be redistributed using different criteria. Why? If holdings are acquired using unjust means, clearly the individual or entity is not entitled to those holdings and a rectification of injustice in holdings is called for.  But if holdings are acquired justly, what exactly is the principle under which justly acquired holdings are to be redistributed? A historical concept of distributive justice holds that a distribution is just if that distribution came about by legitimate means. To make his point, Nozick compares taxation of income with servitude. Imagine a person who works extra hours to earn cash in order to pursue happiness in some activity that requires cash (e.g., going to the theatre). Imagine another person who elects to use the extra time on leisure activities that do not require cash (e.g., watching the sunset). What is the difference, Nozick asks, between seizing the second person’s leisure and requiring some social work, which would clearly be forced labor, and taking the first person’s income? Appropriating the results of someone’s labor is equivalent to seizing hours from that person and gives others a fractional property right in the person.  In both cases a partial ownership of our actions and labor is sought by others, negating our self-ownership. Unquestionably, we all want to live in a just society, but does justice reside in a given predetermined distribution of holdings or in the underlying principles generating the distribution? Redistribution can only be accomplished by violating individual rights and any end-state desired distribution cannot be realized or maintained without continuous interference with our liberties. Even if it were possible to achieve, for one instant, a desired distribution of holdings, such a distribution would immediately begin to break down by individuals choosing to save in different measures, or to exchange goods and services with each other. Continuous interference would be required to take from some person the holdings that others chose to transfer to them. Redistributive justice requires the appropriation of our actions by some Leviathan. Is this what we want for American society? Please let us know if you  this article. This article was originally published in English in the PanAm Post and in Spanish in El Nuevo Herald.   José Azel, Ph.D. José Azel left Cuba in 1961 as a 13 year-old political exile in what has been dubbed Operation Pedro Pan - the largest unaccompanied child refugee movement in the history of the Western Hemisphere.   He is currently dedicated to the in-depth analyses of Cuba's economic, social and political state, with a keen interest in post-Castro-Cuba strategies as a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS) at the University of Miami and has published extensively on Cuba related topics. In 2012 and 2015, Dr. Azel testified in the U.S. Congress on U.S.-Cuba Policy, and U.S. National Security.  He is a frequent speaker and commentator on these and related topics on local, national and international media.  He holds undergraduate and masters degrees in business administration and a Ph.D. in International Affairs from the University of Miami.  Dr. Azel is author of Mañana in Cuba: The Legacy of Castroism and Transitional Challenges for Cuba, published in March 2010 and of Pedazos y Vacios, a collection of poems he wrote as a young exile in the 1960's. José along with his wife Lily are avid skiers and adventure travelers.  In recent years they have climbed Grand Teton in Wyoming, trekked Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania and Machu Pichu in Peru.  They have also hiked in Tibet and in the Himalayas to Mt. Everest Base Camp. They cycled St. James Way (El Camino de Santiago de Compostela) and cycled alongside the Danube from Germany to Hungary. They have scuba dived in the Bay Islands off the Honduran coast.  Their adventurers are normally dedicated to raise funds for causes that are dear to them.  Watch Joe & Lily summit Kilimanjaro. Books by Dr. José Azel Mañana in Cuba is a comprehensive analysis of contemporary Cuba with an incisive perspective of the Cuban frame of mind and its relevancy for Cuba's future. Buy now   Pedazos y Vacíos is a collection of poems written in by Dr. Azel in his youth. Poems are in Spanish. Buy now

To friend, follow or email author click on the icons below: Copyright © 2015 Azel & Associates, All rights reserved. If you are receiving this email it is because we met you at some point on an adventure. Our mailing address is: Azel & Associates 440 Sawgrass Parkway, Suite 106 Sunrise, FL 33325