homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Justifying unequal distribution of goods

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Justifying unequal distribution of goods
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to some Libertarians, our/your ownership of property is justified if it meets a few criteria. Assuming, after Locke, that at one point in the past, all goods were held in common but anyone gained a right of individual ownership by working it as long as there was enough left for everyone else to work, Robert Nozick argued that:


  • 1.A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
  • 2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
  • 3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2. (Nozick 1974:151)

Where the principle of justice in acquisition is that there was justice in how item came to be held initially and the principle of justice in transfer is that there is justice in the transfer.

And then he seems to suggest that owning something is only just if both criteria have been met - ie that there was justice in the initial gaining of the item and justice in every transfer. If there isn't at any point, some kind of restitution is necessary.

Some seem to think this would give support to massive inequality, but it seems to me that it would only justify massive redistribution. Interesting though the idea is, how can you ever know whether the initial transaction was just? And if the initial status of the transaction determines whether every other transfer is just, what happens if it is built on a long ago injustice?

There is a powerful argument that the founding of the USA was unjust on the native tribes. Would that therefore mean that every property transaction in the subsequent centuries are unjust? Colonial countries gained much wealth from overseas properties and labour, does that mean that all subsequent wealth in those post-colonial countries is also illegitimate?

If someone has sold something to you at a very low price, how do you determine whether that is in fact just?

If a libertarian could explain this to me, I would be grateful, because it seems to me to suggest that nothing is ever legitimate rather than that vastly unequal distribution of goods is legitimate.

[ 10. October 2012, 07:52: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it just me, or is 1) basically meaningless? It's saying property ownership is justified if it was acquired in a just manner, but doesn't define what 'just' means.

I'm not a libertarian so the question isn't really addressed to me, but IMV the problem is that a lot of property ownership is based on factors that are more or less random, in the sense of out of the control of the property owner.

Imagine, if you will, an anarcho-syndicalist utopia that consists entirely of self-sufficient collective farms. The Ricardus Victory Kolkhoz develops a way of doubling the grain output, which means the grain distribution is temporarily slanted in favour of Ricardus. Now in the absence of a central state enforcing intellectual property, probably all the other farms will try to apply whatever technique Ricardus discovered so the balance will be restored - but what if Ricardus' success was due to some unique minerals found only in the soil around Ricardus' farm?

I think my view is:

1. Property ownership is partly determined by random factors, so it is difficult to argue that anyone has an absolute right to any part of their patrimony;

2. Therefore property laws and redistribution should primarily aim to favour society as a whole, rather than the protection of individual property rights which don't exist.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it just me, or is 1) basically meaningless? It's saying property ownership is justified if it was acquired in a just manner, but doesn't define what 'just' means.

The "principle of justice in acquisition" has a specific meaning in Nozick - if you click on the long ranger's link, you'll find it.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it just me, or is 1) basically meaningless? It's saying property ownership is justified if it was acquired in a just manner, but doesn't define what 'just' means.

The "principle of justice in acquisition" has a specific meaning in Nozick - if you click on the long ranger's link, you'll find it.
That notion of justice has its root in Locke's assertion that people are equal.

One consequence of equality would be that people could bargain as equals but this is clearly not so. A person who has greater wealth can afford to pay a higher price for property, thus driving the less wealthy out of the market. This mechanism gains momentum, so that the ownership of property becomes more concentrated.

It's easy to explain unequal distribution of goods, but difficult to justify it.

[ 10. October 2012, 12:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That notion of justice has its root in Locke's assertion that people are equal.


Apparently it is from here:

quote:
Justice in acquisition: "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." - John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch.5 Sec. 27 Justice in transfer: "Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselesly in it." - John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch.5 Sec. 46
Which, as I understand Locke implies:

a) that you are a just acquirer of common goods if you have done something (mixed labour) with it

b) that you're freely exchanging the things you have on the open market.


quote:
One consequence of equality would be that people could bargain as equals but this is clearly not so. A person who has greater wealth can afford to pay a higher price for property, thus driving the less wealthy out of the market. This mechanism gains momentum, so that the ownership of property becomes more concentrated.

It's easy to explain unequal distribution of goods, but difficult to justify it.

I think it just boils down to this: if you have stuff you've legitimately earned and/or you've acquired it by a fair transfer, it is yours.

Which is fair enough, as far as it goes. In my view it is very difficult to show that you are actually entitled to a transfer of property which may have been obtained unjustly in the distant past. Also, I'd argue that most property transfers imply some sort of injustice - so the question of exactly what you mean by justice in that context becomes very important.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most actual libertarians that I have known view things somewhat differently. The real question is, "Which power do you fear most?" For most libertarians, that seems to be the Federal government. For other people, it is unfettered private industry. For still others, it is foreign powers.

Who you see as the real bogeyman will pretty much determine who you want to let determine who gets what. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it just me, or is 1) basically meaningless? It's saying property ownership is justified if it was acquired in a just manner, but doesn't define what 'just' means.

The "principle of justice in acquisition" has a specific meaning in Nozick - if you click on the long ranger's link, you'll find it.
Oops.

Even so, I'm not sure Nozick's / Locke's definition actually works in our society as we have constructed it. AIUI, Locke is saying that if I (say) cut down a pine tree and make it into a bookcase, the bookcase belongs to me because it is the product of my labour plus something 'natural'. The problem is that in reality the pine tree probably stands on someone's private land and belongs to someone. And I think there are very, very few natural resources for which that is not the case - at least in the UK anyway.

[ 10. October 2012, 13:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The problem is that in reality the pine tree probably stands on someone's private land and belongs to someone. And I think there are very, very few natural resources for which that is not the case - at least in the UK anyway.

It has never occurred to me before that strictly on Locke's position if a landowner isn't working all of their land then it can be appropriated by someone who will work it. The Diggers had been doing their thing in living memory - I wonder how Locke evaded the consequence?

I think Nozick's position would allow him to say that any appropriation of land by an individual would count as a just transfer. Of course, that still leaves him open to the objection that in the world as it now stands probably every bit of land belongs to its current owner as a result of a nonconsensual transfer at some point.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Diggers had been doing their thing in living memory

Living memory? Locke was at school in London during the Civil Wars, and his father was an army officer and well-known to many influential politicians and clergy. So he probably knew all about it at the time.


quote:

- I wonder how Locke evaded the consequence?

By being Very, Very, Very, Polite about Charles II [Biased]

Though AFAIK he did flee the country once or twice, just in case.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It has never occurred to me before that strictly on Locke's position if a landowner isn't working all of their land then it can be appropriated by someone who will work it. The Diggers had been doing their thing in living memory - I wonder how Locke evaded the consequence?

I am not a Locke expert but I think he would argue that land which is not Common Land is already owned by someone, so someone else taking and working it would be stealing - non-legitimate acquisition.

I might be completely off the mark, but I thought the Digger communities involved communally digging up Common Land (I thought that was kinda the point!).

quote:
I think Nozick's position would allow him to say that any appropriation of land by an individual would count as a just transfer. Of course, that still leaves him open to the objection that in the world as it now stands probably every bit of land belongs to its current owner as a result of a nonconsensual transfer at some point.
Why? If that is the case then he is arguing anyone stealing anything from anyone else is just. Which is certainly not the impression I get from Locke.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd: - I wonder how Locke evaded the consequence?

By being Very, Very, Very, Polite about Charles II [Biased]

Though AFAIK he did flee the country once or twice, just in case.

What I meant to say is that his Treatises on Government were meant as the official ideology of the Glorious Revolution. That wouldn't have happened if Whig landowners had noticed people citing the Treatises as justification for Digger-type activities.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It has never occurred to me before that strictly on Locke's position if a landowner isn't working all of their land then it can be appropriated by someone who will work it. The Diggers had been doing their thing in living memory - I wonder how Locke evaded the consequence?

I am not a Locke expert but I think he would argue that land which is not Common Land is already owned by someone, so someone else taking and working it would be stealing - non-legitimate acquisition.
The problem is that on Locke's theory you can't acquire ownership of anything just by saying that you own it. You have to do something to it to improve it. So if you claim ownership of some stretch of land and you start farming half of it that stretch of land belongs to you. But if you haven't actually done anything to the other half you haven't actually taken possession yet.

quote:
I might be completely off the mark, but I thought the Digger communities involved communally digging up Common Land (I thought that was kinda the point!).
The Diggers said it was common property. The local landowners disagreed about that.

quote:
quote:
I think Nozick's position would allow him to say that any appropriation of land by an individual would count as a just transfer. Of course, that still leaves him open to the objection that in the world as it now stands probably every bit of land belongs to its current owner as a result of a nonconsensual transfer at some point.
Why? If that is the case then he is arguing anyone stealing anything from anyone else is just. Which is certainly not the impression I get from Locke.
I meant to say, Nozick's theory probably does allow you to point to a stretch of unclaimed land and say, 'that's all mine now'. It doesn't allow you to steal it or take it. Sorry if I gave the impression that is what I was saying. That said, it has been a while since I read Nozick.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In Canada we have lots of Common Property; it's called Crown Land. If you wish to cut own a pine tree on Crown Land you have to pay a Stumpage Fee to the province for the right to do so.

The whole forestry industry is based on harvesting timber on Crown Land and paying stumpage fees for the privilege.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, if you read the early Christian fathers, their view of wealth was that it was given to us in order for us to redistribute it. If you have much, and someone else has little, even if you acquired what you have legally, even if you acquired it justly, keeping it is unjust, keeping it is evil.

Here's a sampling.

You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. ~ Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.

The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put into the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help. ~ Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.

Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs. ~ John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions. ~ Irenaeus, 130-200 AD

The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally. ~ John Chrysostom, 347-407

Share everything with your brother. Do not say, "It is private property." If you share what is everlasting, you should be that much more willing to share things which do not last. ~ The Didache

How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping? ~ Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.

When you are weary of praying and do not receive, consider how often you have heard a poor man calling, and have not listened to him. ~ John Chrysostom, 347-407

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Josephine, I hadn't picked up that train of thought from the early church. I wonder if anyone any significant groups ever actually lived like that.

Maybe you all could tell me this: would it be correct to think that university level education of the period to Locke and Hobbes had a political theory strongly influenced by Plato? If so, can it be said that these writers were seeking to stand against the classic ideas of governance - of which Plato is a form of exclusive aristocracy ruling and everyone else sitting down and shutting up?

I'm not sure if the impression I get is correct, but it seems like Hobbes is influenced by Machiavelli, who in turn seems to be standing against the tradition of moral leadership offered by Aristotle. Machiavelli seems to be putting forward a just get things done and forget the morality arguments model to the Prince and Hobbes seems to be tempering that by suggesting a model where the Sovereign acts as a scary Leviathan which gives space for individuals to relate and co-exist with rights. Locke seems to further offer an explanation for further rights and responsibilities to the individual with interactions to the state governed by mutual acceptance for the good of all and the social contract.

But that might just be the way I'm reading it, it is entirely possible that there is no direct effect of these writers on each other.

Josephine's point is interesting in the context of the Diggers because they're clearly attempting to use the bible to show that mutuality is divinely ordained (which, come to think of it, is the opposite of Hobbes' understanding of the State of Nature). Locke seems to go even further away from this and argue that communality is laziness, and that efficiencies (and profits) are only gained by individual hard work.

Which is interesting in the context of the current political language of slackers and the hard-working middle class. I am struck by how often modern political philosophy falls into a type of prisoners' dilemma - apparently acknowledging that everyone would be best off if there was a level of communality, but that in the real world where some work hard and some slack/cheat/steal, the appeal is for everyone to think only of their own best interests.

Given the widely advertised dangers of more communal systems (perhaps as suggested by the early church writers, communism and co-operatives), maybe the dream of people working for the interests of the whole rather than just their own narrow self interest is floating away.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe you all could tell me this: would it be correct to think that university level education of the period to Locke and Hobbes had a political theory strongly influenced by Plato? If so, can it be said that these writers were seeking to stand against the classic ideas of governance - of which Plato is a form of exclusive aristocracy ruling and everyone else sitting down and shutting up?

Locke is on the opposite side from Hobbes - Hobbes is arguing in favour of the Royalist cause in the Civil War while Locke is arguing in support of the Glorious Revolution which limited the power of the monarchy.

AIUI the curriculum would have begun with Latin writers, of which Cicero and historians would be the most relevant, and moved onto Greek writers - I think the most relevant Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides. Hobbes translated Thucydides into English. But I'm not sure whether any of them would have been taken as directly relevant. Plato would have been more famous for his communism than for his authoritarianism.
There are a lot of political writers in early modern Europe, most of whom are now known only to specialists. (Grotius is the most important whose name springs to mind - he's somewhere between Aristotle and the Stoics AIUI and is regarded as the founder of modern traditions of political rights and international law.)

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
maybe the dream of people working for the interests of the whole rather than just their own narrow self interest is floating away.

It was never more than a dream.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd rather follow Rawls than Nozick. Rawls, if I have it right, would say that inequalities are justified only if they result in a benefit to the worst off in society.

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Thanks Josephine, I hadn't picked up that train of thought from the early church. I wonder if anyone any significant groups ever actually lived like that.

The fact that the Fathers hammered away at it suggests to me that their contemporaries weren't particularly good at living like that. They wouldn't be shocked by our living in luxury while people die for lack of food, clothing, and shelter. I think they would be shocked, though, by the way we attempt to justify it.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
maybe the dream of people working for the interests of the whole rather than just their own narrow self interest is floating away.

It was never more than a dream.
Would that be like the dream Martin Luther King had? Few question that it is right to move in that direction.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would that be like the dream Martin Luther King had?

No, it's far less realistic.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools