The Nozick side of the room said: It's fair that some have more wealth than others because (a) that person earning more has earned it through their work and (b) the person in the exchange with them has willingly engaged in that transfer. So in the Will Chamberlain example, it is just that Will Chamberlain make more because people willingly and freely pay more to go and enjoy watching him play basketball-- no one is holding a gun to your head and saying that you HAVE to see this basketball game.
The response from either Rawls or Marx side of the room (I cannot recall, nor does it particularly matter) was that disabilities or infirmities that keep people from working is like putting a gun to someone's head-- without a means to support themselves they will be unable to survive. I understand the use of this logic in the creation of social programs such as welfare and social security. However, (and this was the point I stumbled over trying to make in class today) the creation of such programs takes away that "gun to the head," if you will. By removing the pressures of survival and even from only certain demographics will slow the momentum of growth for ALL of society; this is not to mention the countless number of people wrongly benefitting from such social programs, which degrades the progress of society at large.
(Disclaimer, I struggled to maintain this Nozick opinion long enough to write this post. I fully support the social security program and the appropriate application of the welfare system.)
No comments:
Post a Comment