Let’s say a bunch of poor kids all pay to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Wilt gets the money, the kids get to see the game. At the end of the day Wilt is richer and the kids are poorer. Since we wouldn’t object to any one of these transactions, why should we object to the resulting pattern? Robert Nozick went further and argued that any "pattern-based" notion of justice would require continual and unjustified interference in personal liberties. That was one of the most famous claims in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia; here is another summary of the argument.
I’m all for the NBA but I’ve never been overwhelmed by this approach. I agree that there is "nothing unjust" about the Chamberlain outcome but still perhaps we can do better in consequentialist terms. Nozick’s argument defeats egalitarian leveling but does it really refute, say, mildly progressive taxation? What if we could tax Wilt a bit and make life much better for the kids? Without invoking public choice skepticism about government (which indeed is important), what’s so bad about that? Is it morally wrong? Wilt is still quite free and we get some social good in return.
I’m usually skeptical of moral arguments that don’t confront the question of "at what margin" straight up. I will, however, buy this (abbreviated) argument:
1. A doctor is not required to devote his entire life, or even a part of it, to helping poor kids in Africa, even if he could create greater good by doing so. Personal autonomy matters.
2. The right to keep the product of your labor — money! — is a big part of autonomy, even though it is not always recognized as such.
3. Barring end-of-the-civilized-world exigencies, no one should be forced to part with more than a certain percentage of his or her income, even when valuable public goods are at stake. There is, after all, no end to good ideas for redistribution, not the least of which is the helicopter drop to Malawi. We all draw the line somewhere, so it’s not enough to cite benevolence to defeat the claims of property rights and the demand for low taxes.
4. Adhering to such a percentage rule will have desirable consequentialist properties, given the public choice problems with government behavior. Thus a kind of consilience supports this moral view.
That all said, I do not believe we have a very clear or very scientific answer as to what the right percentage is. Furthermore "the proper percentage" is likely contingent upon historical circumstances. I take that as representing a partial — but only partial — endorsement of Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument and of course I reject the deontological ("just don’t!") nature of Nozick’s approach altogether.
Warning to extreme libertarians: Don’t even try to argue that zero is the maximum permissible rate of taxation. Would you abolish all taxation today, immediately, if it meant a rapid collapse into social chaos?
Warning to social democrats: You are used to citing beneficience arguments to argue for raising taxes. But you reject beneficence arguments yourself, when you refuse to step into the shoes of Peter Singer and call for even more redistribution. I want to make you feel guilty about this tension. What you’d like to do is dismiss Singer with a separate argument and then turn your fire to the anti-tax types and feel that beneficence is always on your side. It isn’t.
Here is my earlier post on Nozick’s experience machine. Here is Will Wilkinson with more on Rawls. Going back to our earlier discussion, Ross Douthat has provided an excellent discussion of notable conservative books. I am a big fan of Nozick’s book although a) I don’t consider it "conservative," and b) I like the obscure sections best, such as the discussion of anarchy and government in the first part.
← Previous Comments
First, Finnsense let me say that I have enjoyed this conversation. I have been thinking about the difference between Finnish and American schools since I read and article on Finland and its schools in the Wall St Journal about a week and a half ago. Maybe we have hijacked the thread, but it has been a good conversation.
We are often told how well other countries do and that we should adopt this or that model (for instance the article I read). And I wonder if we are not missing the big picture that some sub groups white and black in the US have problems that are not comperable to those same economic sub groups in other countries. In other words culture matters and a model that works in Finland may not work in the US. For instance as I mentioned North Carolina does many similar things to Finland and yet its performance is far worse especially at the low end.
What is teen pregnancy like in Finland, I think I read that it was 2 out of ever 100 teens with half being aborted. For a black teenager in the US it is 15 out of 100 (don’t know the abortion stats but I believer they are much lower). How many poor Finns have children very early? How many poor Fins are raised by grandmothers and aunts. What percentage have two parents? how many parents have seriouls substance abuse problems?
For the black players that I played football with and drove home after practice it was rare for them to have their father in the home. They did not refer to where the “lived” but instead where they “stayed” this was not just a difference in linquistics but reflected how often they might be moved to another home.
How is dicipline in a Finnish school. How often to low incomes Finns argue with their teachers? How often do the fight each other. How often do they raise their voice at teachers and other students?
These type things describe the state of what I would call the type of student who does not graduate highschool in the US.
I imagine(maybe incorrectly) that Finnish schools are more similar to the one my wife went to in rural Michigan. Very little diversity (you were white and either catholic or Lutheran) small school that everyone in town went to rich to poor. Dicipline was strong but not needed that much because their was a standard enforced by parents and the community about how to act. Even students that dropped out were not disruptive they just didn’t show up.
IMO we as a society in the US have chosen to focus on money and method in education, instead of focusing on the much larger root cause of problems which is a disentagration of family and culture within some sub groups (again white and black because many of these same issue decribe problems with what some might call poor white trash or rednecks who I also went to school with).
None of these problems are mainly about money or redistribution. I am not sure what has caused the problems. Could be residual from racist past, could be entitlements which have eroded work ethic and responsibility, could be a decline of moral pressure to conform to a norm by society as a whole. I don’t know what the reason is, but I am pretty certain that it has very little to do with economic resources.
But maybe I am wrong maybe the poor Finns have all these issues as well and the Finnish system is able to overcome them. If so I would be interested to hear about it. My guess is that Finland has a model that works quite well in Finland given its culture but would not change much or be even detrimental in the United State.
It’s interesting that in 100+ replies, nobody seems to realize the fallacious assumption Nozick makes.
Follow this link to a long response.
Greg: “Insisting on a US or European quality of life while objecting to the existence of taxes and the government is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. They’re inseparable. Enforcement of property rights, police, defense, public education, and so on all depend on taxation.”
I agree those public requirements you listed must be funded. But federal and local governments were meeting those requirements 80 years ago when taxes were a fraction of what we now pay.
What in God’s name is a “U.S. or European quality of life”? Does it include: welfare, food stamps, and earned income tax credits; agriculture subsidies; National Endowment for the Perverse Arts and public television; light rail boondoggles and bicycle paths; 75 federal programs funding international education and cultural exchanges?
If you have to buy some holic online gold, please come to our company.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.