Justice distribution “Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.” ― Wendell Berry Retribution

The Liberal Tradition Progressives Libertarians Key values – equality of opportunity and quality of living Want a welfare state that makes sure no one falls below a certain basic standard of living Favor a progressive tax system in which the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes Libertarians Key value – Personal Liberty Want a minimal government with power limited to courts, police, and military Oppose any income tax, except, perhaps, a minimal flat tax for the minimal government

Libertarians vs. Progressives on Tax Policy Watch the following two videos (click on them) for more information on this debate The Debate on Taxes Elizabeth Warren calls for Higher taxes on the Rich

Libertarians oppose the following types of laws 1) They oppose Paternalistic laws. These are laws that protect people from themselves. For example, motorcycle helmet laws. People should be free to take their own risks 2) They oppose Morals legislation laws. People's personal moral decisions are their concern. The law should not govern morality. 3) They oppose the Progressive income tax. This means that they either believe (a) there should be no income tax at all, or (b) there should be a minimal flat tax to pay for police, courts, military, and perhaps fire protection and the like.

Nozick's argument for Libertarianism Nozick claims two things: 1) that we own ourselves, and 2) that therefore we own our labor. It follows that whatever money we earn through our labor is our property. If someone taxes me on my property, they are forcing me to give away what I freely earned. This, Nozick, argues violates my ownership of myself. Because of this, it is wrong to take my income through taxes. Nozick's argument for Libertarianism

Rawls argument for Progressivism Rawls counters that the amount of money that someone earns is arbitrary. For example, David Letterman makes millions of dollars a year, whereas K-12 teachers make an average of 43,000 year. Letterman did not do anything to deserve getting so much more money than a teacher. How much money we makes depends on a combination of our natural talents (which we are not responsible for) and the things society happens to value (which we are also responsible for). It follows that we do not morally deserve our salary and, thus, we cannot complain of the state taxes us to fund essential public services and programs.

The Original Positon Rawls describes an “original position”, in which representatives with limited information about the interests that they represent attempt to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls’ suggestion is that whatever principles such representatives would agree to have legitimacy, and argues that two principles in particular would emerge with a consensus. In the original position, rational agents, each representing an individual in society are gathered together to decide how society should be ordered. Each agent is concerned solely with the interests of the person that he represents, but must negotiate from behind a “veil of ignorance”. This veil of ignorance means that he does not know the background or situation of his client; he must negotiate blind.. The representatives must negotiate from behind a veil of ignorance to ensure that they do not discriminate against groups on the basis of arbitrary characteristics. If a representative knew that the individual he was representing was a middle-class, white male then, given that the interests of his client are his sole concern, he would have no objection to the enslavement of other ethnic groups, restricting the rights of women and the existence of huge pay differentials between company executives and shop-floor workers. Denying this knowledge to the representatives means that they must consider all possibilities on the lifting the veil of ignorance, and so respect the rights and needs of every member of society. It is Rawls’ claim that all of the representatives would agree to two principles. The first of these is a principle of equal liberty  which ensures that no client is disadvantaged by factors such as race, gender or class, that all members of society enjoy the freedom necessary to pursue their goals, whatever they may be. Rawls’ second principle is thedifference principle , which permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society.