Justice

1. 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

2. Progressives 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 The Liberal Tradition 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 minimalgovernment

3. 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 vs. Progressives on Tax Policy

4. 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

5. 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 51,000 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.

6. 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. In the original position, rational agents, each representing an individual in society are gathered together to decide how society should be ordered. Each agent must negotiate from behind a “veil of ignorance”. This veil of ignorance means that she does not know the background or situation of his client; he must negotiate blind.. It is Rawls’ claim that all of the representatives would agree to two principles. The first of these is the 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 the difference principle, which permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. principle of equal liberty