home

Anderson on Hayek on Rawls on Justice

For a change, I liked this Elizabeth Anderson post on Hayek and procedural justice. I don’t think she gets anything wrong! But do see Steve Horwitz’s smart comment, which contains worries I share.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 31st, 2005 at 2:01 pm and is filed under Political Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

4 Responses to “Anderson on Hayek on Rawls on Justice”

  1. Knowledge Problem
    May 31st, 2005 17:50
    1

    LEFT2RIGHT: HAYEK ON THE INSTITUTIONS OF A FREE SOCIETY

    Lynne Kiesling I don’t read Left2Right, largely because I don’t like politics. But this >post from Elizabeth Anderson about Hayek’s arguments for procedural rules for public support to those who cannot “play the game” is insightful and thought-provokin…

  2. Insiderman
    June 1st, 2005 11:56
    2

    Hayek posits a minimum level to protect those less fortunate, but for the life of me I can’t see why. Not all “bad luck” lasts forever, and a minimum level prevents people from scrambling back into productive society. For the “bad luck” that does last forever (physical disability, etc.), allow that strain to pass from the earth. Alternatively, if a group of like-minded people wish to take care of those with permanent “bad luck,” let them. They can even approach me with appeals to my conscience (assuming I am willing to listen). But keep their damned hands out of my pockets.

  3. Luka Yovetich
    June 1st, 2005 14:12
    3

    Insiderman,

    Let that strain pass from the earth? “Bad luck”? You’re a bit too harsh on this subject, it seems. I consider myself basically libertarian but when I listen to somebody like you I pause and wonder if maybe the government shouldn’t just take a little money out of our pockets just to piss people like you off.

  4. Protagoras
    June 2nd, 2005 01:41
    4

    Indeed, I’m with Luka. Well, not with the goal of pissing people off, but with the goal of making sure everyone has decent opportunities. Some people with “bad luck” will turn out to do something surprising in the future. Further, I am inclined to think that those who do not do so nonetheless do not deserve death. Perhaps I am too soft-hearted, but really, compare the costs of welfare, even for the whole world, with the money the government squanders on corporate welfare for no good reason; I tend to think that welfare is entirely capable of being practically affordable, and if it is, I definitely think it deserves to be funded on the basis of taxes on the rich.

    Perhaps I’m biased, not being personally rich (though tax time is painful for me every year, and I console myself with the thought that my taxes are intended to do good). But while I can accept in principle that taxes could serve as a discouragement to productivity, in the grand old days of the 50s, when most conservatives thought America was doing so well, the top marginal income tax range was over 90%. So I fail to accept that high marginal income tax rates for the extremely wealthy must destroy ecomonic progress. But if they don’t do that, what’s wrong with them? Who will seriously argue that it’s bad to have heavy taxes on the rich because they’ll mean the rich aren’t as much wealthier as everyone else as they want to be? Who will argue that it’s good for Paris Hilton to have no financial worries for the rest of her life, absolutely without regard for what effect such policies might have on others? To be ruthlessly pragmatic for a moment, such thinking seems to me to be begging for a revolution.

    I certainly have some biases. I am definitely not rich; I am below the median American income. I am, however, scarily well educated, and this seems to be significantly responsible for what success I have had. To the extent I’m right about this, my race, gender, and social class have certainly not been irrelevant; I have a good enough background to easily schmooze with the typically white academic males I need to in order to keep my academic career going and in order to keep getting my jobs (well, on a couple of occasions, I was interviewed by women, but while I’d like to say my success in those interviews came down to my native charm, realistically it’s hard to see how my class status, as somebody in the same category, didn’t help me a lot even in those interviews).

Leave a Reply

« The Minneapolis Airport
You’re Invited »

Recent Comments

Reading