Presentation on theme: "EM 213.32 4 Winter 2013. Read for Friday Chapter Cases Eminent Domain Battling Over Bottled Water Articles Isbister: Income distribution Maxwell:"— Presentation transcript:
Income Distribution ? inequality promotes efficiency Is any compromise away from equality justified? Is any constraint on efficiency justified?
Income Distribution ? inequality promotes efficiency get an education work hard hierarchy 2 x 2 x 2 efficiency ? = ? wealth production
Income Distribution ? efficiency = wealth production
Income Distribution & Justice Ask yourselves Is this fair? Is freedom a sub-value of justice/fairness? Why? How did it get this way? Should we change it? How? Would any of your answers be different if you weren’t a Christian?
ch 3 cases Bottled Water whose water is it? “There’s no difference between Perrier bottling water, Gerber making baby food, or Miller brewing beer.”
The Nature of Justice fairness equality deserts rights
The Nature of Justice distributive justice proper distribution of social benefits burdens
The Nature of Justice some distributive justice options to each an equal share according to individual need personal effort social contribution as a free market allows as fortune determines
Distributive Justice 3 secular ideas Utilitarian whatever will maximize happiness Libertarian whatever will maximize freedom Rawlsian whatever reasonable people would agree to
Distributive Justice Utilitarian whatever will maximize happiness ownership workplace authority government role incentives safety nets Mill
Distributive Justice Utilitarian greater equality of income declining marginal utility of wealth inheritance
Distributive Justice Libertarian liberty = non-interference Nozick
Distributive Justice Libertarian premise of rights negative natural “Lockean” entitlement “theory” property goods money
Distributive Justice how is the market “just”? Utilitarian Libertarian
Rawls “the original position” “the veil of ignorance” familiar & fundamental liberties inequalities justified if benefit worst off conservative non-utilitiarian maximum position »minimize maximum regret
Rawls 1.all have equal basic rights maximize what all could have “primary social goods” »income »wealth »rights »liberties »opportunities »status »self-respect
Rawls 1.all have equal basic rights maximize what all could have “primary social goods” 2.inequalities OK if attached to positions open to all benefit the least advantaged
Rawls Can this apply in marketplace discussions?