The Illicit Economy

By

 When is engaging in the illicit economy, as Shelby calls it on page 177, (e.g., selling drugs, gang activity, etc.) permissible? Is it ever permissible? Prior to reading Shelby's chapter on work, I had a strong belief that the basic structure and the job market were inequitable and unjust. This conviction is one that I held even from a very young age. Growing up as a young Black man in the U.S., I was exposed to numerous stories about people being unable to find work for a myriad of reasons. The jobs they were able to find were often demeaning, extremely difficult to get to, and unsustainable. Alongside these stories I heard about people unable to find work, I also heard stories of people creating their own work in the illicit economy. These stories were pervasive in the media I consumed, and because I knew people in similar positions, I was able to put faces to these general stories. Since I could relate closely to these stories, I grew up having more empathy for people in these situations, yet I remained conflicted. Although I felt bad for people in these situations, I also knew it was wrong to engage in criminal activity. 

Upon reading reading chapter 6, this conflict returned to the forefront of my mind. Now, although I am equipped with more life experience and more fancy philosophical ideas to try to resolve tough problems like this one, this conflict is more difficult for me to resolve in my mind than ever. If dissenting from an inequitable job economy is permissible, and if receiving welfare is contingent on one's involvement in the workforce, then what is one left to do? Even if we do not accept that refusing to work is a permissible form of dissent, what would we say to someone chooses to work, but their wages and the welfare checks still aren't enough to support them? I am reminded of a line from Kendrick Lamar's "The Heart Part 5", "N–– goin' to work and sellin' work, late for work / Workin' late, prayin' for work, but he on paperwork." Here, Kendrick describes someone who cannot get a good paying job because of a previous criminal conviction, so they are forced to sell drugs to make a living. If someone is faced with a choice between starvation or participating in the illicit economy, how much moral blame can we place on them for choosing the latter? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more