Comments (5)

• Kristian Joensen

  That was an excellent article and a very interesting point using Rawlsian argumentation against the mainstream view that is statism. Brilliant !

  Published: April 18, 2007 12:06 PM

• ProfaneCreation

  This article is a good elaboration on how a civilization controlled by the State can never saitisy the principles of liberty. Ill have to add that the current beauracrats and other demagogues that currently rule over the world have more power according to the system then the private individual. It does'nt satisfy the equal liberty principle. I have heard a few things about Rawls and I know that Statists use his reasoning. It seems that Rawls has contradicted himself if he believed that his principles fit a democratic state or any state for that matter. Then again, anyone who worships the State is in a continuous contradiction.

  Published: April 18, 2007 1:06 PM

• Eric Sundwall

  Best post I found all day. Somebody taking on Rawls with anarchy. Thank you.

  Published: April 18, 2007 9:16 PM

• simon

  There seem to be a number of errors in this article. Firstly, according to Rawls, a just society does not meet the two principles quoted. There is also a third, Fair Equality of Opportunity principle, which Rawls believes is 'lexically prior' to the difference principle, although this probably does not have much impact on the argument pursued in the article. The second error is to think that, in a state consisting of two persons, the difference principle implies that we must make an assessment of whether what Tom forgoes is greater or less than what Joe gains. Rawls' point is rather that Tom is only allowed to earn more than Joe - or be wealthier than Joe - if such differences in income (or wealth) are to Joe's advantage. The article seems to have misinterpreted what Rawls is saying. Thirdly, it is only correct to talk about Joe 'stealing' from Tom if there is a theory or convention about property rights in place. Most such theories derive from John Locke but are far from universally accepted. Without such a theory, talk of theft is meaningless. This was one of Rawls' concerns and where Robert Nozick (whose theory of property rights is neo-Lockean) has been most subject to criticism.
  These criticisms make me think that there are difficulties with the argument presented in terms of the two person state. However, I think the idea of state sub-division is nevertheless quite interesting and taken to the one-person level, may give some important insights into difficulties for Rawls' approach. In essence, each one-person state would need to negotiate with others in a similar geographic area in order to ensure security, and a justice system, which might well be essentially anarchic - or failing that - lead to a type of contractarianism along the lines proposed by David Gauthier in Morals by Agreement.

  Published: April 19, 2007 8:37 AM

• Mark Humphrey

  I fail to see the point of a long article devoted to the question of whether or not "anarchism"--the attempt to exclude coercion from society by getting rid of the state--meets John Rawls criteria for a just society. John Rawls never provided good proof for his assertions about ethics and politics. Why would any reasonable person give a handful of sand for what John Rawls thinks?

  And still, morality and ethics are crucially important issues to which all disputes about politics ultimately reduce. For example, as Ayn Rand wrote somewhere, people don't favor collectivism because they have embraced bad economics; they embrace bad economics because they favor collectivism. To persuade people that collectivism with its destructive coercive regimentation is a bad choice, libertarians need a reasonable and logically powerful view of moral principles that support indiviual liberty.

  To properly establish a good explanation of moral principles requires that thinkers understand the nature of knowlege and of existence. They need to understand the nature of knowlege to grasp the principles of effective inquiry, and to understand why objective knowledge is possible to man. They need to understand the nature of existence to realize why contradictions are impossible in reality and to see that the universe is not a metaphysical haze of mystery. Establishing a good explanation of the nature and purpose of morality is a logical extension of this prior philosophical groundwork.

  But ours is an age of philosophical nihilism, in which "intellectuals" declare, in effect, that no one can truly know anything. People who are smart, decent, and often outstanding have uncritically absorbed this anti-intellectual agnosticism. And so they believe what they've been taught: philosophy is a hopelss waste of time; morality is the province of religion, or sentiment, or cultural habit; reason is flawed and capable only of distortion as concerns all ultimate issues.

  Without a reasonable and powerful philosophical foundation, libertarianism will never exert a powerful influence on non-believers. If the moral vision advocated by many libertarians boils down to "do your own thing", most people will remain unpersuaded, because they need to know for what values they should live. If the moral defense of individual liberty is based on faith, most people will remain unmoved. Non-libertarians have faiths of their own.

  Rothbardian libertarians often seem to believe that they can change the world without concerning themselves with this essential groundwork. They tend to think that anarchism is a sort of philosopher's stone with answers to virtually all human problems, with the power to pull others into their intellectual orbit. But promoting anarchism won't provide people with what they really need: a logically compelling defense of the moral value of individual liberty.

  By neglecting to tackle the challenge of moral philosophy head-on, many well meaning Rothbardians unwittingly evade the crucial theater of battle in the fight to defend individual liberty. Tibor Machan's 200 page book "Capitalism and Individualism: Reframing the Argument for a Free Society" clearly explains why philosophical and ethical agnosticism strip many free market defenders of liberty of philosophical coherence and persuasive power.

  Published: April 23, 2007 4:01 PM