Citing the studies of Norman Frohlich and Joe Oppenheimer: “Just as Rawls predicted, subjects readily settled on a principle of fairness. But the winning principle was not quite as Rawls predicted. No group selected the difference principle, where distribution is anchored by the worst off. Instead, groups settled on a principle that maximized the overall resources of the group while preventing the worst off from dropping below some preestablished level of income. This principle provides a safety net for those who are disadvantaged, for whatever reason, while allowing for extra benefits to flow toward those who contribute more to society.” Pg. 88

“Attitudes toward these principles were high, and showed little change over the course of the experiment. However, when subjects had the freedom to choose, and vote unanimously, their satisfaction and confidence in the principle were significantly higher than when the same principle was imposed on them. The average-income [maximizing] -and-floor principle emerged as the clear winner. As a principle, it was stable after multiple iterations of the work-pay-redistribution cycle, but functioned to instill confidence in people, both those at the top and those on the floor. Contrary to many current political analyses, an income-distribution principle that allows for inequalities while taking care of those who are most in need does not reduce incentives to work hard, nor does it create a sink of free riders…Those who received from other players, and who actively participated in deciding the best principle, almost doubled their efforts in order to contribute to the overall income. In contrast, those working under the same regime, but with the principle imposed, cheated and decreased their efforts, because they perceived redistribution through taxes as their right.” Pg. 89

I’d say more, but I’m trying to save it until it’s ready to release all at once.

I would think that the greater the number of jurisdictions, the less sure you could be that any given one will permit a free flow of people and capital but the more important exit will be in total.

But we’re talking leaves and branches of a tree planted in shallow soil. A strong wind, and, well…

And oh my do I agree with you about the “uselessly over-Kantian clutches of his students.”

The original position is — and this is a serious, well-researched statement — nothing but an ideal concept with which moral philosophers might tease out the Universal Moral Grammar.

Of course, that’s great and worthwhile. We should all feel grateful that Rawls thought REALLY HARD about Justice and provided us with an incredibly detailed layout of pressing moral problems and their “finite and somewhat accidental corpus of observed utterances”, as Chomsky would say (Syntactic Structures, pg. 15).

But that’s it, Will. Seriously. Rawlsian theory, except as a jumping-off point in Moral Psychology, will soon be an historical oddity.

There are far more interesting currents underfoot. Five years from now, we’ll all chuckle about how preoccupied we were.

In any case, I think Tom does a good job of showing how assuming away exit in fact structures the nature of the problem Rawls’ argument is intended to address. Certainly that’s not what Rawls MEANT for it do, but it looks to me that Tom is right that that it does. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your thoughts after reading the paper.

You should have Tom on to discuss these things on the next episode of “Free Will.” With guest Julian Sanchez, maybe?