Historia de la Música cubana y universal (todos los perfiles)

Rawls claimed that the Difference Principle ‘‘represents . . . an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset,’’ to be exploited to the benefit of the least fortunate members of society.10_Many

critics have taken Rawls to task for seeming in this passage to introduce some sort of collective ownership in individuals’ personal assets and talents. Leading this charge have been the libertarians, for whom Rawls’s infamous remark about talents as ‘‘common assets’’ represents a repudiation of their cherished principle of self-ownership and hence an unacceptable concession to socialism. For, libertarians complain, if ‘‘society’’ has the right to redistribute the fruits of some people’s labor and talents to others without their consent, the latter can no longer be said to be unqualified owners of these personal assets. Such assets would instead form a common pool of resources that society may allocate as it chooses. Those entitled to benefits under the Difference Principle in effect acquire a right to some portion of others’ earnings and the labor and talents that produced them. This institutes ‘‘ownership by others of people and their actions.’’11Once we see this, we must conclude that the redistribution required under the Difference Principle is ‘‘on a par with forced labor,’’ or so libertarians like Nozick contend.12

This criticism seems powerful because it raises the same concerns that led Rawls himself to reject utilitarian conceptions of social justice. As we have seen, Rawls’s worry about utilitarianism was precisely that it would 10 _{Rawls (1999a), p. 87.}

11 _{Nozick (1974), p. 172.} 12

objectionably permit individuals to be treated merely as means for maxi- mizing aggregate welfare. According to Rawls, individuals who accept such a permission must think of themselves as in principle reducible to little more than fodder for the mill of utility maximization. Believing oneself exploitable in this way, Rawls reasoned, precludes a proper sense of self- worth and self-respect. But if that is true, is it not the case that treating individuals’ talents as a common asset, to be exploited to maximize the benefits of the least-advantaged members of society, is a comparable threat to individuals’ self-respect? As Nozick charged, individuals’ sense of self- worth seems safe under this arrangement ‘‘only if one presses very hard on the distinction between men and their talents, assets, abilities and special traits. Whether any coherent conception of the person remains when the distinction is so pressed is an open question. Why we, thick with particular traits, should be cheered that (only) the thus purified men within us are not regarded as means is also unclear.’’13

Although many contemporary philosophers seem to regard this objection as extremely powerful, even devastating, I find it hard to understand why. The objection alleges that the way in which successful individuals’ assets are used to benefit others, under Rawls’s proposal, is comparable to the kinds of personal sacrifice that utilitarianism could permit or even require. But when one actually thinks about the kinds of cases that led Rawls to reject utilitarianism, this comparison loses much of its plausibility. Rawls was worried that utilitarianism might permit very extreme personal sacrifices for the sake of overall utility. Perhaps the abject impoverishment of the few is a condition of the freedom and prosperity of the many; perhaps overall utility requires that some surrender any claim to basic liberties, such as the right to freedom of speech and association, or to practice one’s religion in accordance with one’s conscience; perhaps it requires that some be enslaved so that many more others enjoy greater well-being. Given these possibilities, Rawls thought that individuals who embrace utilitarian principles would be stalked by anxiety that at any moment the ‘‘calculus of social interests’’ might require them to forfeit their freedoms, basic well-being, and even their lives merely to secure marginal increases in overall welfare.

But the predicament of those liable to taxation under the Difference Principle is surely less dire in several important respects. First, they need not 13 _{Nozick (1974), p. 228.}

worry, as denizens of a utilitarian society might, about their basic liberties being sacrificed. For these basic liberties are already guaranteed under Rawls’s lexically prior first principle and they are explicitly not subject to the ‘‘calculus of social interests.’’ Notable among these liberties is what Rawls called ‘‘freedom of the person,’’ in which he included ‘‘freedom from psychological oppression, and physical assault and dismemberment (integrity of the person).’’14These entitlements, which would categorically rule out any sort of enslavement or privation of basic liberties, the Difference Principle leaves wholly untouched.

Second, those liable to taxation under Rawls’s proposal are in socially advantaged positions, abundant in social primary goods. They are thus assumed to be already rich in ‘‘the social bases of self-respect,’’ which for Rawls comprise the most important primary good of all. The question is whether these reserves of self-respect are likely to be in any significant way depleted by redistribution of some of their earned income to less- advantaged citizens. In this context, comparisons with ‘‘forced labor,’’ which evoke images of chain gangs, labor camps, manacles, and dangerously arduous physical effort, seem ludicrously indiscriminate. Real forced labor of the Burma Railway variety is a form of servitude. Its victims are forced to work under the most degrading of conditions, without regard to their physical safety, with little or no compensation, and without recourse to complaint or protest. Maybe utilitarianism might sometimes require that some individuals submit to such miserable conditions. But even so, why suppose that the Difference Principle could require anything so drastic? To suggest that when compelled to forgo a portion of their presumptively ample income to support those less fortunate than themselves, successful professionals (say) undergo treatment that is comparably degrading or corrosive of their self-respect seems on its face quite ridiculous.

So obvious are these differences that it is only natural to speculate about why those impressed by this objection to the Difference Principle seem so willing to overlook them. Why are people in our culture tempted to think that their self-worth is closely bound up with their ability to retain every last penny that their talents and personal assets can command in a market economy? Why do they resent redistributive taxation to the point where 14

they are prepared to take implausible comparisons with forced labor seriously?

One possible answer, deserving closer scrutiny than we can give it here, draws attention to the way in which post-industrial societies create new demand for goods and services, and thus fuel economic growth, by encouraging certain false needs. I mainly have in mind here demand for luxuries, and especially those goods that serve as tokens of the social status, peer-recognition and self-definition to which many people, driven by the fads of modern commercial culture, today aspire. These phenomena may explain though would not justify the tendency to associate redistributive taxation with a loss of self-worth. If taxation threatens agents’ ability to afford the badges of honor and recognition they seek, it becomes easier to understand why they might resent it as potentially degrading. On this view, widespread resentment of redistributive taxation by wealthy individuals is a symptom of a narcissistic anxiety about status and inclusion characteristic of the more affluent sectors of contemporary society.15

This suggestion is obviously speculative. Whatever its plausibility, however, we have yet to be given any convincing reason to reject the Difference Principle on the grounds that it necessarily injures the self- respect of advantaged individuals. And if the principle at the same time combats those forms of economic disadvantage that do tend to erode self-respect, one could conclude vindicating Rawls’s original contention that considerations of self-respect support rather than impugn the Difference Principle.