On Right Distribution -- LIFEBOAT

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:30:03 02/17/00 Thu
Author: SwimmingUpstream
Subject: On Right Distribution

Barquentine,

I understood what you wrote. My replies were intended to show you that your approach to the "problem" of "justice" is what makes it difficult/impossible to "solve". I offered another approach, a fourth type of equality, and you ignored it.

Your methodology reminds me of so many philosophy professors whom I watched saying, "Goo goo," to their students, who would in unison reply, "Goo goo." Then the professor would say, "Da da," and the class would reply, "Da da." Then the professor would start talking about cakes on a table and the absence of a cake king (never bothering to address the questions of who put the cake on the table, who allowed the persons at the table to sit at the table, was the cake sufficient to the needs of all seated at the table, etc.). And then the professor would outline for the class the limits of the types of equality that could pertain to right distribution, omitting important ones, and thereby stultifying the students' minds. And then I saw the universities withering, becoming incapable of turning out individuals with enough imagination to lead their fellows when they needed leading. And then I turned my eyes away from the moribund universities, and set about the task of making a living university possible again. However, I shall not turn away from you just yet.

Now to the topic of Right Distribution.

To me the first question that ought to be asked on this topic is: Which of the good(s) to which I am directed by Right Desire are the proper object(s) of my concern in terms of distribution? (One may read Aristotle to find an explication of Right Desire.) Those goods will define the proper scope of any Idea of Right Distribution.

I answer: The proper objects of my concern with Right Distribution are those objects that I or others need, the unnecessary possession of which (by me or others), or the unnecessary excluding of persons from which produces injurious privation (to me or others). By properly identifying those objects, and disciplining my mind accordingly, I can endeavor to avoid causing unnecessary injurious privation -- to myself or others -- while I am seeking goods.

What are the various goods that one can be injuriously deprived of (excluded from obtaining) by virtue of their excessive or unnecessarily exclusive possession by others?

I answer: Access to material necessaries; access to the store of knowledge obtained by humankind that can help me to learn how the world operates and how I may live properly in it; access to Valued Place (a good derived in part from association with others) -- which encompasses much that is generally referred to as "spiritual" or pertaining to the joys of the life of the mind, and to satisfaction; and, perhaps a few others the listing of which will not alter significantly the outline of the scope of a beneficial Idea of Right Distribution.

By which means can this injurious privation be caused?

I answer: The means by which capable responsible persons can be injuriously deprived of these goods as a result of the acts of others are forms of limitation on their liberty -- forms such as fences, enslavement, etc.

You stated that the "problem" of "justice" has never been "solved". I have suggested that your statement points to error(s) in defining "the problem of Justice". Error(s) of that type often occur at the point I have reached in my line of questioning. For some reason a work of Paul Elmer More (his "Shelbourne Essays") comes to mind as exemplary of this.

As I recall, More started his process of defining "Justice" with this: "Justice" is the act of right distribution, the giving to each man his due. (Ulpian started from there also -- Suum cuique -- if I recall correctly.) More then set about defining "right" and "due", deciding "due" necessarily included: giving to certain individuals within society the privilege of fencing off the world from the rest of society; giving to those certain individuals the privilege of demanding labor in exchange for granting someone access to the planet when they deemed it desirable that someone other than themselves have access; and, giving to those certain individuals the privilege of distributing the resulting goods and power and privilege (property as the symbol and instrument of power and privilege). According to More, that distribution of goods and power and privilege is to be made in a way that will satisfy the discrimination of reason among the superior, and that will not engender the enmity of the inferior.

Was More correct in his decision that the granting of such privilieges was necessary and "due"? I don't think so, for the following reasons.

I concede that when thinking about right distribution of material goods one runs almost immediately into the hard surface of the earth, and that out of the cloud of dust produced by the collision arises the specter of the need for Territory. But what is the extent of that need?

Does an individual require for the success of any of his searches for goods access to the entire planet?

I answer: Perhaps, depending on the nature of the good being sought.

Does an individual require for the success of any of his searches for goods the possession of a Place that he may secure against injurious overcrowding or injurious intrusion?

I answer: Yes.

Does an individual require for the success of any of his searches for goods access to more of the planet than his secureable Place?

I answer: Perhaps, depending on the nature of the goods being sought, and the adequacy of his Place to all his needs.

Does an individual require for the success of any of his searches for goods the opportunity to communicate with all persons on the planet?

I answer: Perhaps.

Is there enough utilizable land on the planet to make it possible to grant to each individual a secureable Place that will yield under his toil, and without cooperative effort, all his material necessaries?

I answer: No.

If cooperative efforts at production of material necessaries are required by virtue of the space limitations of the planet, is it necessary that all individuals participate in the cooperative effort by laboring in the production of material necessaries?

I answer: Experience has demonstrated that it is not necessary.

If it is necessary to fence off parts of the planet for cooperative production enterprises, is it also necessary to demand some token of previously exchanged labor from those who do not toil directly at those enterprises but who would toil at them if needed?

I am going to answer this question within the context of a world as yet "unfenced", "unowned". Within that context I answer: No.

And now Incentive rises from the deep and demands of me my attention.

If the necessity of laboring directly to produce material necessaries is lifted from individuals, will they become idlers who neglect performing other labors that are needed of them? In other words, if a token of some form of labor that has been performed elsewhere in exchange for that token is not demanded from one in exchange for material goods, will one have sufficient motivation to labor at needed tasks?

(For some readers a list of "needed tasks" may be crucial to an answer. These tasks can be put into two categories. Category One includes all those tasks one needs to perform for one's good -- seeking knowledge of the good and of how the world works and how one may live in it, seeking Valued Place, contributing to defense against inter-human predation, keeping one's domicile in adequate repair, attending to one's hygiene, etc. Category Two includes those tasks needed by others for whom one is rightfully responsible - aiding one's children to acquire the skills needed to live in the world, protecting one's children from avoidable injury, etc. By "Responsible" I mean: Possessing the willingness and ethical capacity to be forced to account for one's actions and failures to act.)

I now answer the above question: Some individuals will be adequately motivated by their needs and some will not.

Will a society (a way of living) be capable of retaining adequate vitality and the allegiance of its members under such conditions -- that is, if tokens of previously exchanged labor are not demanded in exchange for material necessaries, and idlers exist?

Obviously, having developed Mutualism, I have answered that question: Yes. I have given some of my reasons in other posts. I'll give more reasons now.

With regard to the ability of a society (a way of living) to retain the allegiance of its members I point out that associations retain the allegiance of their members when those associations serve to provide something (function, a reward, a source of satisfaction, a good. etc.) their members value which is not provided more attractively (perhaps more seductively) elsewhere.

A society that does not demand tokens of previously exchanged labor in exchange for material necessaries will make possible more Valued Place, will allow individuals more time ("leisure" in the classical sense of the word) for their searches for knowledge of how the world operates and how they may live in it, and will allow individuals more time for the joys of the life of the mind and art than a society based on Money Systems can. Such a society will in my view be far more capable of retaining the allegiance of its members than any society based on Money Systems.

One's time. I've invoked that notion here because it is crucial to any proper discussion of Right Distribution: For rightly distributing one's life, taking responsibility for the formation of one's character is the premier labor of every person -- and it cannot be done well if one is forced by others into spending some of one's time on this planet at unnecessary tasks. An improper assessment of "due" can, and usually does, lead to the unnecessary theft of another's time -- one of the greatest evils man may visit on his fellow man.

Is my needed liberty to be rightfully curtailed , is it to be rightfully demanded of me that hours of my day be consumed in labors not of my choosing, because of the irresponsible behavior of others? Is the individual to be kept from flourishing because the power hungry -- those persons possessed of a socially corrosive managerial hubris -- wish to use the irresponsible among us as an excuse for our subjection?

It was the foregoing considerations and reflections that guided me to my conclusion that the sort of equality that any valid theory of Right Distribution ought to appeal to is the equality of the freedom to choose which goods we shall seek/obtain and when and by which means, provided that none of these choices knowingly causes injury that can be avoided.

Mutualism is an effort to create a setting in which an individual may enjoy the maximum personal liberty compatible with that same liberty being enjoyed by all. It is an effort to put an end to the continuing state of war that unnecessarily exists between men, a state of war that is reducing life to a hideous loneliness and spirit killing monotony for more and more persons each passing day.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]