Livia: Nozick on Patterned Principles of Distributive Property

By

 

When Nozick discusses patterned principles of distributive property, he demonstrates how these principles would often involve “head-on clashes between the moral side constraints on how individuals may be treated and their patterned conception of justice that presents an end state” (172). To demonstrate these conflicts, Nozick invites us to consider a thought experiment in which a society has a compulsory scheme of minimal social provision to aid the neediest. He suggests that emigration is allowed for individuals within this society. Further, he articulates that anyone who decides to leave would be doing so to avoid this mandatory participation in social provision. He asks the powerful question “What rationale yields the result the person be permitted to emigrate, yet forbidden to stay and opt our of the compulsory provision?” (173) While Nozick does not aim to fully answer his own question, he concludes that potentially, the logical contradiction in this society’s claim comes from the rationale that forcing aid tends to produce fraternal feelings between the aided and the aider.

As I read this though experiment, it made me consider the supreme court case National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius. This case (put simply) considered the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) which became effective on March 23, 2010. The most critical aspect of this act was the minimum coverage provision which provided an individual mandate forcing all individuals to purchase and maintain a minimum level of health insurance. If individuals failed to comply with this requirement, individuals had to pay a tax penalty. While the question concerning Congress’s use of the commerce clause to legitimize this act is important here, I will set this question aside for now. The relevant question for this blog post is: Can the government compel individuals to become active in commerce? Here, we see a similar question to that of Nozick’s thought experiment above. There is some level of compulsion at a governmental level that seems questionable here. While answering the question I proposed above might seem simple quite simply: the government should not have the power to do so, the question becomes complicated when one considers the ramifications of a failure to participate on the whole of society. In this instance, the failure of individuals to buy and maintain health insurances places a tremendous burden upon those who do have health insurance to cover their expenses. Why might it be ok for individuals to not pay for insurance and force other individuals who do pay for insurance to cover them? Why is not ok for these individuals to be forced to pay for insurance such that this burden is not imposed upon others? It seems morally irreconcilable.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Nozcik here. There does appear to be this tension created when we appeal to patterned principles of distributive property. Thought, I would like to dig a bit deeper into understanding how Nozick believes his notion of distributive justice rectifies these issues.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Global Racial Empire vs Materlialism (marxism)

By Anonymous
In reading Taiwo's Reconsidering Reparations  I was reminded quickly of reading about materialism in Marx's The German Ideology . Marx built a framework that viewed nearly every aspect of society, from basic family dynamics to tools to language to industry as a result of humans fulfilling their material needs. Taiwo cites author Charles Mills who argued for a framework of "global white supremacy" as a political system  that results from the fact that "the world has been foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy" (25). Taiwo goes on to say that his book agrees with this theory.  I do not object the the fact that global white supremacy has affected nearly the entire world. It has been a phenomenon that has shaped the global power structure, allowed those in power to gain wealth, and subjugated millions of people.  Though, I do think an important nuance could be clarified. I notice that subjugat...
Read more

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more