A.) I read the Property Rights notes and I thought it was interesting reading about the manipulation of fairness and Thomas Schelling's experiment during the 1970s. The first question, would it be fair to give a larger child tax credit to poorer families than richer families, seems very fair: poorer families with children get a a tax break when compared to richer families. Now this leads into the second question, which is: should rich couples without children pay a larger surcharge than poor couples without children. Again, this seems to make sense, but it is actually the same thing as saying that poor with children receive a smaller bonus than rich with children. This is because rich without children suffer more and therefore the rich with children receive a bigger bonus. Poor without children don't suffer as much and so poor with children receive a smaller bonus. The thing is, both questions/schemes are EXACTLY THE SAME. So how can one be fair and the other one not be fair? Obviously this unsettles people and causes them to question their own views on fairness.
B.) What sorts of conditions must be in place in a society for self-ownership to be absent?
For justice formulation, fairness = voluntary exchange + proportional requital. For proportional requital, Locke explains that this means every man gets his "just due." What exactly constitutes a just due? Is it different or the same for everyone?
From the collective farm example, how many people would you expect to go home and leave the crops to rot? So then how many would you expect to stay the extra week and earn the $1 million for the "country," essentially?
C.) This reading was assigned because it introduces us to property rights and moral justice. Private ownership is the premise of our capitalist market and so it is important for us to get a feel for what's out there and what every person is entitled to as far as justice goes. It also builds off of the institutions notion..... institutions matter!
No comments:
Post a Comment