Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

Are you sure? I suspect some of my tax goes toward someones boondoggle (e.g. General Electric paid negative taxes last year...)

Well my taxes don't go to the same place that yours do, but I absolutely see your point. Big businesses getting huge tax breaks to the point of absurdity like that it ridiculous, but it's not like all or even most of your taxes go that way. The plural of anecdote etc....

I was more thinking of the struggling little guy. I'll pay a little extra so he can have a little of what he needs to survive. I'm happy to pay more in taxes so kids can have a better education, public water is safe and clean, and poor people in my little socialist country can have the luxury of seeing a doctor when they need to (as opposed to when they can afford to).

You damn Marxist, how dare you want those things!

---

As promised, here is my research paper on John Rawls and his theory of "Justice As Fairness". For this paper, we were required to pick a political thinker we covered in the course, discuss one or two of his theories, and then apply them to modern society. Criticize (or less likely, compliment) if you will, I already received an A on the paper and an A in the class as I mentioned previously. A little over 10 pages (length requirement was 7-10 pages). Have at it. *Edit* the paper itself has many paragraphs and is double spaced but not sure how to format it exactly the way it was, but this is close enough I guess minus the double spacing/indents.

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality. It is this idea which I will examine. Following this, I will apply his theories and their relevance to modern American society on three separate but related realms: politics, economics, and social/cultural structures, that ostensibly influence our culture and how we view society. Some key institutionalized issues we currently face in each of these areas serving as justification will be provided.

According to Rawls, it is important we first establish that justice and fairness are not the same thing (McQuitty 194). Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just. There is a profound relationship between justice and fairness for Rawls, however: fairness is one of the intrinsic elements found within justice itself. Rawl's theory is composed of the following two tenets: 1. Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. 2. Inequalities are only permissible if they benefit all of society and that those with the greatest disadvantage will still benefit; offices and open positions must be open to all under fair and equal opportunity (DeLue 250). Observing these principles, one might be led to believe that Rawls was advocating a view similar to that of Marx, but there are paramount differences to consider. First, Rawls' idea is applied in a more comprehensive and overlapping context, while that of Marx is seen primarily from an economic determinist point of view. But perhaps more importantly, Rawls accepted inequalities so long as the means for a fair chance of success are equal – equality of opportunity rather than outcome. In contrast to this, Marx manifested complete equality as the end result. For Rawls, all things practiced must be equal before a departure from the original position of equal liberty can take place, and there must be legitimate justification for it. If such a greater liberty can be achieved without losses or creating contentious circumstances, then it should be done, so long as they are compatible and efficient with the practice which defines them (McQuitty 196). In short, all people must be granted justice which protects basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. Let us use the game of chess as a symbolic representation to further clarify what Rawls' second tenet means. When we play chess, we do not object to the fact that all the pieces move differently, and that some are more powerful than others. What can be protested, is the caliber of player that wields them. Obviously, an amateur is no match for a Grandmaster. For this reason, a higher caliber player may give “odds” to a lesser player, such as removing a piece or two from the board, or remove minutes from his clock at the start of the game should it be a timed one. This inequality benefits the weaker player to create a more fair playing field, just as the second tenet in Rawls' theory applies to social and economic inequalities in society. Although this idea clearly illustrates what justice is for Rawls, we still must ask: how are these principles to be carried out when there are so many different interests and values that must be accounted for? This is especially true in a highly multicultural nation like the United States, which has a less homogenous society than say, Japan. To answer this question, we must first examine another important idea that Rawls had in his theory of justice, “the Veil of Ignorance.”

“The Veil of Ignorance” introduces the idea of a hypothetical society where people lack a knowledge of self: we do not know our individual talents, the social class we were born into, how much wealth or resources we have access to, or other extrinsic variables. We do however, still have knowledge about our society, its values, culture, laws, and so forth. By adhering to the veil, we cannot create policy, govern, or take measures that pursue only our personal interests, because we simply do not know which principles of justice will benefit us from the lack of personal knowledge that we all have. In other words, we may take action to improve our position in some manner, but without knowing our place in society this is a great risk: for example, what happens if you try to pass legislation that benefits yourself, only to have it backfire because you are on a lower rung in society than you had presumed? The risk is most likely too great, with only a small potential for reward. The argument of course, is that we do know our personal attributes and our background, so the veil theory cannot be put into practice for Rawls' opponents. But if we assumed it to be reality, would putting this theory into practice not be just, and beneficial to society? I personally believe it would be so, for we would have to forgo much of our selfishness in exchange for doing what is right, or just. This would create a more fair playing field between those with great power and wealth, and those on the lower rungs of society. Putting Rawls' idea into practice is difficult, because we know which principles of justice will benefit us and which ones will not. And with people naturally pursuing their own interests first, this further compounds the issue of theory versus practicality. We could paraphrase this idea as “prepare for the worst, hope for the best.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine this philosophy not improving the world around us, and thus our lives (the majority at least), if his theory did indeed become the core element of modern civil society in a universal context. For this reason, it deserves further study and consideration.

Rawls' theory is applicable in virtually any modern society today, but perhaps no other nation underscores the idea of justice as fairness, or freedom versus equality, better than the United States. Of all the advanced democratic regimes in the world, none is more paradoxical, or as ethnically and socially diverse. The paradigm of American politics, compounded by the many different cultural values, social classes and ethnic groups, creates a vast and complicated structure within our society regarding various issues and propositions. By applying Rawls' idea of justice as fairness to some of these affairs, we can obtain a better understanding of their fundamental and dynamically historical - yet perpetuating context; on a political, economical, and social level. I will begin in the political realm, by examining some of the common but critical issues and questions that we face today, in the American political system.

One of the hottest topics we see today in American politics is the division of elitism versus populism. Should the will of the common citizen rule over that of the most educated or well off? There are considerable implications on both ends of the spectrum and everything in between. Those who support elitism claim that the better educated know what is best for society and understand the pitfalls and complexities in governing. The drawback of course, is that many populists have a preconception of these individuals as being selfish and out of touch with the needs of the common citizen. Americans have great pride in their state but little trust in it, which is one of the foundations from where this divisive issue comes from (O'Neil 76). This has led to a cultural misconception that “big government” is bad; though it is rather “big business” that is more detrimental and threatening to our civil liberties since there is no constitutional amendment that protects us from their influence. Some people believe that many politicians use populism as a way of manipulation by campaigning for the will of the people but creating or bending policy which favors them or a small group of people. This is a legitimate concern of course, is it really fair and just for this to happen? In most nations, the answer would be no. But it is well known that America has a weak political culture: it participates far less in political affairs, is behind in education compared to its peers in other industrialized nations, and does not understand the political parties and their platforms as well as European citizens do with their system; a form of self-imposed tutelage. The debate will likely rage on and become further complicated by other arising political issues.

Our electoral system, which has become highly contentious in recent years (especially in light of the 2000 election), is closely related to the idea of elitism vs. populism. Should Americans be allowed a system of direct democracy rather than representative democracy? This is a dynamic question because it presents a catch 22 situation: one of tutelage, and another of false consciousness, in the case of the American population. Americans are easily swayed by social discourse, yet often lack the knowledge required to directly participate effectively in politics that is in their best interest. It also contributes to lower voter turnout in American elections compared to other modernized democracies - many feel their vote may not count on the premise that should a candidate win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, and thus the election, is often considered unfair or unjust, because it goes against the will of the people (O'Neil 94).

An equally disputatious, but relatively more clear issue, is that of the two party system itself. Many Americans, with some justice, have come to believe the two party system is no longer working for them and want reform. This is due in large part because they feel both parties are out of touch with the needs of the poor and working class, and that both are in the back pockets of wealthy bankers and CEO's (especially in light of their actions responding to the 2008 financial crisis). Indeed, can two parties possibly represent, on a fair and just level, the will and needs of 310 million people? It is difficult to believe so, for the United States is far less homogenous than most other democracies.

As one can imagine, to effectively allocate two platforms as the choices for governing a nation that has so many different cultures and values is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many citizens believe both parties, despite their different values, are much more similar than we may be led to believe; even with the constant finger pointing and public scrutiny that both use against one another. Should this be the case, one could make the argument of this system not being fair and just in the context of Rawls' theory, and that we are a democracy only by name and not necessarily in practice. Traditionally speaking, liberals and conservatives have very different values, but it becomes more difficult to prove that we have a legitimate choice in our political system, when we see little or no change under the watch of either party. Yet both parties continue to dominate the political arena and there seems little chance for alternative parties to be competitive. The reasons are many, including financing and the paradoxical reality that while many Americans want change, they also fear its unpredictable nature. Would Americans be better served under a parliamentary system, where proportional representation that allows more parties to be involved in legislation (as opposed to single member districts, seen in our current system), than under our more stable but less efficient presidential system? Most Americans are not yet willing to embrace or even consider such a dramatic change, even if they feel the two party system is no longer fair and just. The fact both parties have dominated American politics for nearly the last 150 years is evidence of this (O'Neil 96). Our political system, values, culture, and way of life are so entrenched in traditional legitimacy, it is difficult for changes (especially substantial ones) to take place, even if we want or need them to. The two party paradigm could also be a probable culprit of lower voter turnout in American elections.

One last political issue I would like to address is that of lobbying, and the power generated by wealth that sees the needs of the rich met before those of the common citizens. Did Rawls condone the ability of politicians to be “bought?” Although he never directly answered this question, his theory implies that he would be against it, and rightfully so. When money drives politics and policy, this has the danger of turning a democracy into an oligarchy, and some would contend it is already such. Yet this is exactly what is taking place in America today. Should those who have the ability to pay and thus bribe policy makers have any more power or access to legislation than those who can only hope to see their needs met by voting in a representative democratic system, with no guarantee of victory? This unfair symbiosis of politicians and private interest groups is clearly in violation of both tenets in Rawls' theory, and is the source for much of the political vitiation that has occurred in Washington over the last few decades. Furthermore, it creates a fallacy that we have a transparent political system that is fair and just, that all eligible citizens have a reasonable amount of autonomy in politics, and that we have a legitimate choice in spite of both parties being “funded” by wealthy capitalists and special interest groups to see their interests mutually obtained at the expense of common citizens. Even looking past this, the fairness and justice of the American political system is, at best, questionable, with its ambiguous future. I will now examine Rawls' idea in an economical context, with a critique of American capitalism.

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1990 and the Cold War ended, the western world thought communism had ended for good, and that capitalism was victorious. Not so fast. Some 21 years later, we are in the midst of the second worst economic disaster in American history, a huge gap between the rich and the poor that is rapidly widening, a lack of jobs due to outsourcing, and some 35 million citizens living in poverty in America. The top 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million citizens combined. One can almost hear Marx saying “told you so” from the grave. Indeed, the economic crisis of 2008 has invigorated an already strong backlash against capitalism from the Reagan era, that has made it difficult for its proponents to defend, much less actually justify, as being a fair and legitimate economic system. Applying Rawls' theory to capitalism, we can discover several elements that are intrinsic to just how unjust and unfair of a system it is. The first problem is the very goal of what it seeks to achieve: to create competition in a free-market (this term should be used sparingly, as the existence of a genuinely free market is a myth) system that ironically defeats itself once a monopoly is created. Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just? It is a paradoxical idea at best, a complete failure at worst. Another problem with capitalism is that it is a system where one is required to take considerable risks in order to succeed. If one has a lot of resources to fall back on, this is a relatively easy thing to do. But for those who lack resources, this is at the very least unreasonable, and in some cases, impossible. Remember, Rawls' second tenet states that inequalities are acceptable only if there is an equal playing field, and this is certainly not the case here. Capitalism is a system based on the ideology of Social Darwinism, where only the strongest survive. All other problems aside, this alone is really enough to demonstrate that capitalism is not the fair and just system it has been made out to be. It is a morally bankrupt system that puts profits, consumerism, and materialism above social needs, merit and integrity.

Also worth noting is the paradigm of the capitalistic and materialistic society, and how they both feed one another to create a vicious cycle that is able to perpetually manifest itself: As we gain more capital and wealth, we in turn want more material things. This urges us to take measures to increase our capital so we can obtain these goods. Some of these measures include exploitation, lowering of wages, outsourcing, the deskilling of work (to make work easier so wages can be lowered), and dehumanizing workers so they are a product of their own labor that they do not receive any benefit from. There is nothing fair or just about such a system, in the context of Rawls' theory or otherwise.

Capitalism has brought us many of the products we greatly desire, and in some ways, the so-called free market system has also created jobs (especially in the area of technology) to help firms bring these products and services to society and build our economy. But without strong regulation, safety nets for the disadvantaged, and moral guidelines it can turn into “socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else”, and this is indeed far from being fair and just on any level. Trickle down economics simply does not work (or has not yet occurred); this is proven by the fact the gap between the wealthy and the poor is widening. Yet this is what has manifested in America during the last 30 years or so, and it was compounded by a system of “corporate welfare” upheld by the symbiosis of politicians and special interest groups, as I explained earlier. The United States may boast being the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest economy, but it also has the largest economic inequality and disparity in social class compared to any other democracy (O'Neil 76). Some try to argue that capitalism is necessary to satisfy our natural characteristic of greed, and to suppress it is either wrong or unrealistic. This is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. If we are truly greedy by nature, why would we adopt a system that will only perpetuate it, when we should seek to control it?

In short, capitalism manifests its own demise through a multitude of paradoxical elements, as Marx observed. In the context of Rawls' theory, such a system that benefits only a certain group of citizens cannot be considered fair and just except for those who benefit from it, because of the inequality of resources and wealth among the various social classes. If we put on the veil of ignorance, would we be willing to submit to a laissez-faire market not knowing which rung of the social hierarchical ladder we sat on? Very unlikely. Finally, I would like to examine a few paradoxical social/cultural values and ideas in American society, and their interrelationship with the American political and economic system.

Perhaps the most important cultural paradox of our society is The American Dream itself, based on the Horatio Alger Myth. It implies that everyone can achieve success through hard work and perseverance (Charon 28). This is simply not true, for while there have been some who have achieved success, there have been just as many or more who have not. Did the citizens who did not see the Dream fail because they lacked the drive or ambition required to achieve it? The social class you are born into will greatly determine both your ability to pursue the Dream, and ultimately, your quality of life. The contradicting aspect of this is that many Americans, regardless of their class, think they can go from being poor to rich just by working hard. They completely ignore invisible structures beyond their control, both social and economic, that make this mission of achieving the Dream difficult or even impossible. How many of us know at least one person that works hard their whole life and struggles to make ends meet, and puts the blame on themselves by saying “maybe I just need to work harder” (though such people often have two jobs and work nights)? This stems from a cultural flaw that is deeply embedded in our society: If one claims responsibility for success, one must also do the same for failure (Charon 34). The American Dream creates an paradigm of illusion: we like to blame the individual rather than economic forces, environmental limitations, and political structures that attribute to being much greater factors in determining our success than individual merit (Charon 36), though we use merit as a shield to hide these features so those at the bottom, usually, cannot achieve upward mobility. It is further compounded by the fact that capitalism will see to it that some businesses, and thus some individuals must, and will, fail. Then, we blame these individuals by labeling them as unmotivated, lazy or not smart enough. Of course, there are also race, gender, and class elements in the structures of society that shape our values and perceptions toward certain types of people as well, that hold precedence over individual character and merit. Yet we can use character and merit, which we proclaim to hold in high value, to our advantage by excluding individuals that we may dislike from exercising their rights. This destructive method allows for a system of unfair practices to be put into place, as they manifest social problems such as racism, gender inequality, and class warfare; even if they cannot be done legally. An example of this would be prospects of black people getting a call back after a job interview compared to those of whites. Studies show that blacks without a criminal record still have a lower probability of getting a call back (14%), compared to whites with a criminal record (17%) and without a criminal record (34%), an astounding statistic (Charon 359). This problem is a result of laissez-faire racism (as opposed to traditional Jim Crowe racism), a contour of our society today.

Another contradictory element of American society is the fact we despise high taxes and a welfare state, yet when it comes time for us to open our checkbooks to pay for our childrens education or when that doctor bill comes in the mail, we wish these social services were subsidized. We dislike how the government uses our tax dollars to fund services for those who are less well off than we are, but there is little talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy – the very same individuals who exploit us through our capitalistic system! We are also a nation of patriots and dislike terrorists, yet we condone counter terrorism in the name of imperialism and Manifest Destiny – something we fought against England in the American Revolution. Is America not just as guilty of terrorism as any other nation seeking to carry out a specific political agenda? I could list many more contradictions entrenched in our society, but for the sake of space limitations, where does Rawls' theory of justice as fairness stand in all of this? I have detailed how our political and economic systems have shaped our cultural values within American society. Given the above circumstances, is our society fair and just in the context of Rawls' philosophy? I would have to conclude in the negative. Perhaps this is simply a matter of perspective, and I will leave it to the reader of this paper to decide. But I would ask the reader to first put on the veil of ignorance, and follow up with this question afterward: would it be fair and just to keep society the way it is? Or must we make paramount changes in our personal values, our political structure, and our economic system? Rawls forces us to critically examine our civil society in a different light; especially on issues we take for granted or even thought of as being part of our past but still existing in different forms, such as racism and class disparity. The veil theory will allow us to take the first critical step into achieving a fair and just society, in our political, economic, and cultural realms for everyone, as Rawls' theory envisions.