Friday, October 19, 2012
The Transfer Principle: The Cancer-Curing Pill, Slavery, and Manifest Destiny
The Transfer Principle roughly states that holdings that are freely acquired from others who acquired them in a just way are justly acquired. I think multiple parts of this principle could have important implications for the modern United States.
The first thing that I question about this is the importance and application of the "freely acquired" aspect of the Transfer Principle. If a good cannot be said to be “freely” acquirable, can it be justly sold in the free market? It might be useful to consider one of the situations we discussed last Friday:
A person (or industry) has developed a magical cancer-curing pill. It is the only pill of its kind, and it has been mass produced (or at least produced on such a scale that its existence and availability are common knowledge).
We mostly agreed that the developer of this pill is entitled to his or her holdings. There was some question of whether this violated the “as much and as good for everyone” clause implied in the Acquisition principle, but we eventually conceded that the developer of the pill was entitled to the pills. For that reason, we said that this is a situation in which the state could not justly intervene to distribute the pills to those that need them.
However, does this necessarily mean that the distributor can justly sell them? I don’t think so. The market for these pills is a group of people that are compelled to buy them (I don’t consider quietly accepting a grim, slow death as a viable option when a cure is available. In my mind, this is equivalent to cancer having a gun to your head and telling you to buy the pills). To me, this means that an important component of the Transfer Principle is being violated if the pills are sold. It seems that Nozick’s Transfer Principle creates an odd situation here. The pills cannot be forcibly taken by the government, but they cannot be justly sold. It seems that the distributor has been put into a situation in which he or she can either keep all of the pills or give them away for free. What do you think? Is there another option I’m not considering? Could this same principle be extrapolated to food, shelter, or anything we require for survival? What about addictive substances?
Another thing to consider is unjustly acquired holdings that get passed down from generation to generation. We said that the Transfer Principle can justify the inheritance of wealth, but we also said that any injustices associated with that wealth get passed down. In class, we considered the cotton and tobacco industries as examples--the use of slavery and indentured servitude does not constitute just acquisition. How could we rectify this? What if we went back a little more--how could we rectify the injustices done to Native Americans in a “one time redistribution?”
How do you think Nozick would rearrange the United States (and all other involved countries) in the rectification of slavery and Manifest Destiny through a one time redistribution? Is it possible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Concerning your first point about the pills, I believe that the creator of the cure does have the right to set a price for the cure. Even though it may be a need that should distributed to everyone, I would assume that it would cost money to mass produce these pills. With that being said, unless the production and manufacturing costs can be reimbursed in some fashion then I believe that it is just for him to set a price for his cure that is reasonable to cover his losses.
ReplyDeleteYour second point brings to light Nozick’s greatest flaw in his philosophy in my opinion. I could be wrong but I do not think it is possible to have a one-time redistribution of wealth to correct the injustice of slavery. Would it be a lump sum applicable to every slave owner regardless of how many slaves they had on their property? I am not saying that it would be just to do nothing about the issue but that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to develop a redistribution system that satisfies everyone.
Yeah, the cancer-curing pill problem is a nice conundrum for Nozick's philosophy. I agree with Stanton on how to rectify it; the manufacturer would be justified (for me, personally) in setting a price for the pills, as long as it is at a reasonable level, a price at which everyone could afford to buy the pill if needed. For me, some government intervention in cushioning the price the consumers pay would also be justified. If we are sticking specifically to Nozick's logic, however, I really can't see a way to solve this conundrum.
ReplyDeleteIt's essentially as if a society existing in a constant state of drought produced a citizen who found a way to easily generate water. If they set the price of water at $100/liter, would that be justified? I don't think so, though they are certainly entitled to a profit if they so desired.
Thank you for your comments. I agree that allowing the person to sell the pills is the most expedient solution, but I'm not sure whether or not that would satisfy Nozick's idea of a just application of the transfer principle. My point is that the cancer-curing pill may not be freely acquirable--there is a great deal of coercion at work in that exchange. Do you consider death to be a valid choice for the consumer? I don't.
ReplyDeleteJust like in your example, Matt, the consumer is coerced into buying water from that specific person. No matter how cheaply it is offered, I don't think you can consider that to be a "freely acquirable" good. While I agree that Nozick may say that the owner is entitled to their holdings, I'm not sure he'd agree that the tenets of the transfer principle are met.
We can not look at goods under Nozick's philosophical umbrella as "freely acquired". Nozick's transfer principle states that holdings are freely acquired in examples of inheritance. In a situation like the water one we must look at Nozick's rhetoric of "justly acquired". We cannot make the member of the state distribute the water out of his will, so paying the one hundred dollars would, in Nozick's eyes, be a just acquisition of that good. Under the Acquisition Principle all would be fair in that situation.
ReplyDeleteWe can not look at goods under Nozick's philosophical umbrella as "freely acquired". Nozick's transfer principle states that holdings are freely acquired in examples of inheritance. In a situation like the water one we must look at Nozick's rhetoric of "justly acquired". We cannot make the member of the state distribute the water out of his will, so paying the one hundred dollars would, in Nozick's eyes, be a just acquisition of that good. Under the Acquisition Principle all would be fair in that situation.
ReplyDeleteIf the consumer has no choice about whether to buy the product or not (I don't consider death by dehydration or cancer as viable choices for the consumer), isn't this a form of forced redistribution? Nozick himself is against the forceful seizure of another's holdings. Having a monopoly on a necessary good is equivalent to this, I think. Furthermore, this doesn't fully respect the consumer as a free and rational being; consumers are being placed in situations where their rationality is overruled by survival instinct.
ReplyDeletewhat if we were to put it into a lighter situation? for example, the little purple pill, viagra! men since humanity began have had the problem of getting it up. this century spanning problem found a solution in 1998 when Pfizer starting selling it on the market. at first the selling of viagra was a monopoly and only later did other variations from competitiors come onto the market.
ReplyDeletehow does this relate, you may ask?
well, it was something new to humanity, it was needed (fails in comparison to cancer patient and cancer pill, but still needed)and was at first owned by only one company. now this company didn't have to give out the pills and if it is wrong, since they are the only means by which to get the substance for them to sell it; why do people buy it?
furthermore, using this example set up a design... when people saw the worth of viagra, other companies developed similar drugs to compete! without the ability to sell, then no one would be compelled to compete and possibly better or further develop the substance. viagra has side-effects, prilosac may not... but without the premise of competition brought on by monetary gains, the original wouldn't have been challenged.
Thank you for raising this point, Taylor. There's an important distinction to be made here, I think. I don't consider Viagra to be necessary for survival; in the earlier scenarios, the consumer had a choice between buying the product and death as a result of not having said product. The same can't be said for this situation. Men don't HAVE to buy it--it's purely a luxury. In this case, I'm completely fine with the drug company selling their product, even if they have a monopoly. My issue is when not buying a product is no longer a valid option (situations in which you'll die without it).
Deletenot prilosec... my bad, cialis! sorry!
ReplyDelete