Rawls's Distributive Justice | Political Philosophy with Jason Brennan | Libertarianism.org

Jason Brennan explains the political thought of John Rawls, one of the key figures in modern political philosophy.
Download your free copy of Brennan's "Political Philosophy: An Introduction," here
www.libertaria...

Thanks for this video. As far as I can see it, the main point against libertarianism is the following one: relationship between the capitalists and the workers are not equal, neither in power, neither in knowledge, neither in their place in society. So, we cannot assume that the contract between worker and his employer is just. Is a worker free? No, and I will explain in what way. First, you need to eat and in order to eat you need money and in order to have money you NEED to work. Take close care at this word NEED. If something you need to do than you are not free. Also, morally is not fair that someone has all means of production and the others have only their labour power. When you couple that together you have an asymmetrical relationship between two or more men/women. Anyone wanna expand on this take?

[@BL0B5TER]

That's a great argument against the free market as I see it; monopolies. It's in their interest to keep prices high and to keep competition low, and they can, theoretically. So if you let the market unrestricted, the individual interest of a company/political party with a monopoly over X goes against the collective's interest; the Invisible Hand is BS. When a corporation has a monopoly on a necessity, or cooperates to form one, thus setting the price to suit their own interests (petrol in Canada, medical insurance in the US), you not only go against principles of equality but also of liberty. But I'm not sure that's what Rawls is answering to, I'm not even sure if he addresses it, but it's common sense IMO. Good case against Robert Nozick/Libertarians though :)

[@LukeoXx]

Your argument asserts that because the worker has less power and knowledge that this is necessarily unfair but you don't try to prove why that is unfair. Second, you say the worker is not free because the workers needs to work, but you don't clarify what you mean by freedom. Freedom to not work? How would you grant the freedom to not work to all persons in a society? Even in the state of nature it is required that you work in order to supply for your needs. Lastly, could you please explain to me why it is bad that individuals own the means of production? Do you belive it would be better if the state owns the means of production, why? Is the state in a better position morally, why? I'm seeking to learn here because I'm unsure of my own views on this topic.

[@BeaveHolio]

In a laissez-faire market monopolies can't exist because there is always access for competition, only through the use of force can you make a monopoly, one company may be dominant but only because its product is much better than competitors, but there is still competition after all someone has to be the best. Only the government or crime can uphold a monopoly.

[@patpearce8221]

The presumption of the international scope is that people are not capable of idealising reality beyond ethno-linguistic constrictions

[@berningsandwiches2662]

I'm not sure how you can justify the flipid dismissal of the argument that 'individuals who accumulate vast sums of wealth will use that wealth to buy themselves political power'. Given the current state of the political system in the United States, that argument is not merely theoretical.

[@BeaveHolio]

the politician allows them to buy power by regulating them in the first place, and what would they buy in for favorable regulation for themselves and negative for others.

[@berningsandwiches2662]

BeaveHolio That's because compared to other western democracies our campaign finance system is a joke. Its basically designed to encourage pay to play.

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

One of the truly strange insights of our time; Freedom is dangerous as it may create conditions where some are able to accumulate power over others, so the way to combat this is to create powerful positions and allow them to bypass all stages of accumulation.

[@aramagoo]

If a class should be advantaged it should the working class ,because both the rich and the welfare class rely on their production.

[@JasonFBrennan]

+aramagoo Rawls in effect agrees. The "least advantaged class" for him is expected to be what we'd call the working class. But Rawls also accepts mainstream economic theory, and accepts that the working class's marginal product is not that high. He doesn't accept, say, the Marxist view that the lower workers "create" almost all the social product while others just consume.

[@aramagoo]

The most fair is a system in which no one sees him/herself as outside the system or is empowered to control the system.I have evolved since I made my initial response.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

You mean you have regressed. The best system without a doubt is social democracy. Both ethically and based on results

[@aramagoo]

No,I have certainly not regressed.The individuals who determine class are empirically evil.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

aramagoo Exactly. Libertarianism was one of their best weapons for creating classes.

[@BL0B5TER]

Wait I'm smelling some BS over here. I'm not sure I understand how Rawls' conception of Distributive Justice would lead to great inequalities. Brennan says that the difference principle (as in socio-economical inequalities need to be in everyone's benefice, especially the less advantageous) allows for radical inequality. 8:40 But then, is his argument that the system *could* lead to the optimal wealth distribution being good for the less advantageous and somehow even better for the most advantageous? Tell me if I'm wrong...because otherwise, that's just a bad reading of Rawls! It's distributive justice, it's wealth distribution; any gain the less advantageous gets means a loss for the most advantageous. That's usually how distribution works... The pie metaphor only shows that a certain way of distributing wealth benefits ALL under the Veil of Ignorance, where everyone is impartial, as it benefits the less fortunate. It can't benefit both the most fortunate and the less fortunate, I mean that's the whole point of the Veil of Ignorance!! The *worse* part is, Brennan uses this as a huge point of criticism to Rawls' philosophy, especially in part 6 "Skepticism About Distributive Justice". Now, tell me if I'm misinterpreting it, cause that'd be really ironic, but isn't the entire basketball bit totally fine under Rawls' Distributive Justice, so long as LeBron James, who got other people's money so they can watch him perform, is just taxed on his revenue in a way that keeps him privileged, yet less so, and then said money from taxes is redistributed to the less fortunate than LeBron, like worse players or teams, to help them improve as well, which would also create better competition? When impartial (Veil of Ignorance), everyone wins (even though LeBron doesn't win as much, #TeamMagicJ) isn't *that* what Rawls' just society looks like? Honestly, haven't seen any good vids on Rawls/Nozick on YT, so make sure you read about him before camping in Libertarianism, because you might be attacking a straw man.

[@luistirado6305]

Yea, Brennan sorta misrepresented Rawls in the end there. Rawls believed that the theoretical starting point should be perfect equality of income, and that inequalities should only be allowed if, and only if, they create the necessary incentives that would motivate people to produce enough goods for everyone in that society to enjoy, particularly those who get paid the least. So, in theory, you start from perfect equality and then work your way to the optimal amount of inequality. But in practice, it would make more sense to transition from the inequality that exists today towards less and less inequality, and eventually we would discover the point at which the optimal level of inequality is reached (which may be zero inequality) by seeing when production starts to fail to meet the needs of all the people in the society.

[@abdulmoeedamjad1024]

Dear Mr Jason Brennan. I'll suggest you to please study ZAKAT system. Which is the ultimate solution of above issue.

[@debradestefano4429]

Your example of the pie, doesn't say what appetites each one has to get filled. That's your problem. You think we all get filled on whatever slice we get.

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

Or subjective value. One person might view their piece of pie as an opportunity to temporarily satisfy their hunger, whilst another might view it as a means to trade for something else they desire more.

[@sorenkarlesson5736]

well, Rawl doesn't seem to be in favor of free will.

[@debradestefano4429]

Rawls's doesn't think that nobody is deserving of what they get You've not grasped his philosophy. Take a look at all that is happening today with nationalism, can you say what you believe has made it better or worse? I can guarantee that Rawls theory, if it were applied consistently, wouldn't have us where we are today. Aren't we buying political power today? Corporations are people too.... What has happened here is very similar to having an aristocratic system with the inequity and passing down of wealth. Why don't you try and read him again and read without the defense of libertarians. Just try and read open minded, as surely, you can't possibly see what has happened to our economy and the inequality is just. Or do you still?