 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| Property Rights |
| John
Speaking
|
 I think it might be useful to ask ourselves what Rawls might have said to Robert Nozick.I'm not sure of the answer, but I've got a few ideas: - Rawls believes that we can justify property rights of some sort and the enforcement of voluntary agreements as long as certain background conditions are met. On the other hand, if those background conditions cease to exist, then the rights can be called into question and it may be unjust to enforce them. For example, Rawls put it this way: "The basic structure specifies the background conditions against which the actions of individuals, groups, and associations take place. Unless this structure is regulated and corrected so as to be just over time, the social process with its procedures and outcomes is no longer just, however free and fair particular transactions may look to us when viewed by themselves." [Rawls, "A Kantian conception of Equality", in Ideological Voices edited by Paul Schumaker.] - Rawls would deny that the parties in the Original Position would choose Nozick's side constraints as part of the basic rules of their society. When Rawls discusses the various interpretations of his second principle, he rejects what he calls the system of natural liberty in favor of what he called "democratic equality." |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||