He spent his entire day lying in bed at the age of 88, suffering from multiple age related ailments, needing assistance with mobility, eating and for basic hygiene functions. Alone with just a male attendant for company, his estranged younger son lived upstairs with no time for him, he thought of his wife who had an untimely death a year ago.  His other children lived in faraway lands and despite visits, with little ability to communicate; he mostly just shed some tears.  While not a religious person, you could hear him cry, “Hai Ram¹, please have mercy and let me go.”

Was death bad for him?  Thomas Nagel, the contemporary American philosopher would say definitely yes. In his chapter “Death”², Nagel believes that all deaths are bad and he defends “…the natural view that death is an evil because it brings to an end all the goods that life contains…”

Death could be bad due to the separation of friends and family as well the process of death could be bad, but when discussing the badness of death, we want to talk about what is bad about death for you. Death is not intrinsically bad because when you are dead, there is no you for it to be bad for; death cannot be instrumentally bad as nothing else can happen after you are dead so it can only be comparatively bad, as Nagel says “If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us.”  He states that it is the loss of life, rather than the state of death that makes it bad.  This is the “deprivation account” view of death that Nagel holds in which death deprives a person of all the goods that life contains, and he states “..death, no matter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation of indefinitely extensive possible goods..”  Nagel does little in the way of discussing the value or quantity of deprivation as it pertains to the badness of death, and we will discuss this some more later.

The main objection to Nagel’s view comes from the thoughts of ancient philosopher Epicurus³ who says “So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since as long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death come, then we do not exist..”  Thus, Epicurus believes that death is not really bad and we should not worry about it.  Epicurus’ argument is rather simple and elegant: 1) There is an existence requirement for something to be bad for you, 2) when you are dead you don’t exist, 3) So death cannot be bad for you.  We see similar views about death not being bad in other ancient philosophies, such as Taoism⁴ which sees death as a part of the eternal force which all of us need to accept and live with peacefully and it encourages people to focus on life rather than death, as it is inevitable.

We now have a view of death being bad, regardless of the conditions, and we have a view that death cannot be bad.  How do we reconcile these and how do we thus think about death in our lives?  Most humans do think about death at some and often many times in their lives. Most of us have some level of worry, fear and at the minimum, concern about death, so it is very difficult for us to simply accept that death is not bad and ignore it. How should we think about death so that it influences the way we live our actual lives?  As Spinoza says, “Insofar as the mind understands all things are necessary, so far has it greater power over the effects, or suffers less from them.”⁵ An understanding of how to think about death, could avoid unnecessary anxiety and suffering caused during our life despite deaths inevitability.

Religion offers one solution, most of which maintain a dualistic stance, i.e. they believe in some form of soul and some form of an afterlife or continuation of something after the body dies. In this account, death is not an end, the soul will go to heaven or hell, the soul will reincarnate or transforms into some other life form.  There are multiple versions of these, but they tend to either create a further fear of death (in the heaven or hell version) or a complete resignation (in the reincarnation version}.  For a physicalist of course, there is no solution offered here.

If we have difficulty completely rejecting that death is not bad, to understand the badness of death, we need to return to the deprivation theory and look at it a little deeper.  Nagel says “There are elements which, if added to one’s experience, make life better; there are other elements which if added to one’s experience, make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive.”  Kagan, in his book “Death”⁶, helps to make sense of this in his explanation of the value of life and Nagel’s believes in the valuable container version which assigns value to being alive itself along with the contents.  Thus, following Nagel’s view, regardless of the contents of the container of life, since the container itself has value, death, no matter when it happens, deprives us of something. 

One criticism on Nagel’s approach is that he seems to view at the topics of life and death on the average, despite that fact that death is unpredictable, has a range of time of occurrence, has many forms it can take and has very different processes leading up to it. The average approach gives us little real insight into dealing with the topic of death on an individual level and thus I believe that we should also be concerned about the particular badness at death, i.e. based on individual conditions and circumstances.

To create a model of the value of life and relate it to death, we look at alternative deprivation theories. Kagan expresses support of the deprivation theory but believes in a neutral container model of life, in which just being alive does not have value in itself without the experiences to fill it. This leads to a fairly simplistic model of the value of life and thus the deprivation when death occurs, which decreases with age, the largest being just after birth. This model can be represented by a graph that could look similar to this:

On casual observation, this works quite well – the longer the life, the greater the loss due to death and thus greater the badness of death.   One major objection to this is the issue of transitivity at the time of birth.  The maximum value of life is just after one is born, with no value just before, thus leading to a discontinuity.  Several contemporary philosophers have weighed in on this and offered alternative models on the value of life and the badness of death, including Jeff McMahan, with his Life Comparative account⁷ and John Broome, with his Critical Level Utilitarianism model⁷.  A complete discussion of these are outside the scope of this paper, although incorporating some of their thoughts, I suggest by own model in which the value of life for the average person, who lives a normal 80-90 year old life would look something like this:

When death occurs, the right hand area of the graph from that point on, would represent the potential of goods and experience that the person was deprived of, thus represents the value of the badness of the death.  For a person that say has a terminal illness at the age of 40, the graph would descend very quickly from that point on and the deprivation value thereafter drops significantly.  Thus viewing the value of a life conditional on a life’s circumstances with a similar model provides a basis for the value of the deprivation in case of death.

The entire discussion so far has focused on the value of the goods and experience that is lost on death, which is the basis for the deprivation model. However it seems worth exploring the life one has lived in determining the badness of death.  Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilych⁸ is only about 45 years old and is suffering from an accident related life threatening ailment. He suffers mental anguish from his condition and asks “Why me?”, which can be interpreted as a lament about dying too young and thus the loss of life’s potential – i.e. the right hand part of his life graph.  But he also looks at the life he has lived and realizes it has been shallow and unfulfilling. Ivan’s death is not just bad from the deprivation of potential goods but is also bad because he has not experienced or lived a fulfilling life. Thus I would like to venture to add another variable to the value of a life relating to the live lived. 

If you are told you will die tomorrow – ask yourself – “have you had a life worth living – has your life been fulfilling?”  Then look are what you are being deprived of by death.  Given the latter being non-negligible, if the former is much more than the latter, then your death may not be bad for you and you can go in peace. If you are like Ivan and with a shallow, unlived live and the deprivation is also large – your death will be bad for you as you will not have the chance to live a fulfilled life. This may see counterintuitive, but it measures the badness of death not only on the deprivation, but also with the view that everyone deserves the opportunity to LIVE life.  This sentiment is also echoed by Kagan in his chapter on Living in the face of death. One objection to this account would be the implication that a life better lived is a less objectionable death.  This is actually untrue as the necessary condition is the difference between the live lived and the amount of potential deprivation.  This in no way encourages seeking death but gives a formula for confronting death. In the chapter on Suicide, Kagan’s rationality argument also follows a similar thought as it is possible somebody’s life would be so full of suffering, failure, with no serious prospect of recovery, that death would be better on balance.  Gillian Bennet⁹ in her note said, “I have had a husband beyond compare, and children and grandchildren who have outstripped me in most meaningful ways”, showing how she has had a fulfilling life, yet also says, “Dementia is taking its toll and I have nearly lost myself”, thus stating the forward value she will be deprived of was very little – so death to her was not bad and arguably good.

Thus I conclude that it not rational to describe death in the binary version of bad or non-bad, but rather death, while often bad, has a range of levels of badness that are conditional on the individual and in some cases can actually be good.

I return to my father who I opened this paper with.  He finally did die. He had lived a life as well as he could and given his condition there was no value in his continued living – so death was definitely not bad and as like Gillian, while it hurts me to say this, his death was good.

References

• 1. Ram is an Indian diety, often worshiped as a god
• 2. Nagel, Thomas. “Death.” in Mortal Questions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979
• 3. Konstan, David, “Epicurus”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
• 4. “Taoism Beliefs on Death and Afterlife”, WikiReligions, https://wikireligions.com/taoism-beliefs-on-death/
• 5. Spinoza, B., Ethics, Pt. 5, Prop. VI.
• 6. Kagan, Shelly. Death, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012
• 7. “Jeff McMahan and John Broome discuss the value of life and the badness of death”, Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/02/jeff-mcmahan-and-john-broome-discuss-the-value-of-life-and-the-badness-of-death/
• 8. Tolstoy, Leo. The Death of Ivan Ilych. Melville House Publishing, 2009
• 9. Bennett, Gillian.  “Goodbye & Good Luck!” https://deadatnoon.com/index.html

Capitalism definition and its success

Capitalism has won. It’s been almost 250 years since Adam Smith¹ published “The Wealth of Nations”.  Smith is credited for offering the first theory of capitalism which he described as a system of natural liberty, in which individuals can be trusted with a market based system, without state intervention, which would lead to a highly productive and growing economy. 

Smith’s work is the most compelling guide to  prosperity because of its moral force as he says free markets are led by an invisible hand benefiting everyone, not just the individuals and companies motivated by their own profit.

The data justifying the sucees of capitalism is equally compelling.  The world has seen a dramatic rise in GBP and living standards in the past 200 years.  Researches point to several metrics including  reduction in global poverty, increase in life expectancy, increase in household income that are attributable to to capitalist economies^2,3 . This engine of growth has been even more pronounced in the last several generations as countries like China and India have adopted free market reforms and seen explosive economic growth.

Lawson⁴ states that “The scientific evidence is simply overwhelming that countries that pursue more economic freedom enjoy better socio-economic outcomes in almost every dimension”.

Defining features of capitalism

A key feature of a capitalist economy is that it is organized around private ownership of the means of production, in which “private” stands for individuals and firms, not state. The owners predominantly gain income from their share of ownership and its growth, while labor mainly earn income from wages. Some of other the key features of a capitalist economy include:

Free market : property can be sold, bought and exchanged by citizens at a price agreed upon by free market forces of supply and demond and not dictated by the government.

Factors of Production:  In capitalism, private enterprise controls the factors of production, which include land, labor, and capital.

Accumulation of Capital: The centerpiece of a capitalist system is the accumulation of capital as the driving force behind economic activity is to make a profit.

Markets & Competition:  Competition is the other vital attribute as  businesses compete to provide consumers with goods and services that are better, faster and cheaper. Competition forces businesses to maximize efficiency and offer their products at the lowest prices the market will bear as well as it helps to spur innovation

In support of capitalism

Some of the strongest arguments supporting and justifying capitalism is that is the moral ideal that supports freedom and liberty and thus it’s association with liberalism. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek⁵ argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual.

Similarly Ayn Rand⁶ maintained that capitalism is the only morally socio-political system because it frees people to act in their rational self-interest, and asserted that no politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly.

There are many additional arguments in support of capitalism

• Economic freedom helps political freedom. If governments own the means of production  it invariably leads to a powerful state creating a large bureaucracy
• Efficiency. Firms in a capitalist based society are incentivized to be efficient and produce goods which are in demand.
• Innovation. Capitalism rewards innovation and sets a dynamic where entrepreneurs and firms are seeking to invest in, create and develop new products and services to avoid stagnation.
• Human condition:  being built on the notion of incentives, everyone has an incentive to build, create, and serve others, which is in line with basic human conditions.
• Belief in People:  The capitalist believes that people can make their own best decisions.  This is the basis of the free market with millions of people making individual choices. 

While some of these arguments downplay the negative effects of capitialism and some seem to claim eminent domain to the advantage, it is hard to deny that capitalism offers a lot.  I personally strongly value the individual freedom to create and innovate as an agent of growth as well as self emancipation, in particular in today’s fast moving technology society.

In a speech in 1963,  John F. Kennedy said “A rising tide lifts all boats”.  While he was not referring to capitalism specifically, since then this has often become the mantra of supporters of capitalism.  Has capitalism lived up to this and if so, should we just hand it the mantle and close the debate?   I don’t think we can reach that conclusion just yet.  For a moment lets seque and look at what stands in contrast to capitalism.

Socialism

Socialism stands in contrast to capitalism in which the means of production are popularly controlled. The focus is not on individualism but collectivism of the community at large. Socialism manifested itself in the form of communist and Marxist systems of government in which there was a command economy with central planning.  These found great popularity in the early 20^th century, offering a vision of an equality based ideal in contrast to the ills of capitalism as described by Marx.  Dozens of countries around the world adopted Marxism, yet a majority failed and today there are only remants of communism in a handful of countries.  To understand their demise, it is interesting to look at the Soviet Union as it was the largest and most enduring.

The Soviet system was a huge success post second world war.  It was seen as a model economy with high growth, good wage growth and satisfaction of the worker. The state five year plans were successfully implemented for several decades.  However over time the progressive system of socialism completed eroded.  The ruling elite oriented the economy to military expansion⁷ with the arms race and space war with the U.S. The common people, the workers, were treated like serfs and slaves: they were given the necessities of food, shelter, clothing, transportation and medical care but little else. This ended up being a replication of feudalism in that there was an absence of personal freedom of the common people.  It was exactly what Hayek predicted would happen in his 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom”.   But it wasn’t the failure of the ideals of socialism as Marx envisioned, it was purely a failure of those in command of the economy that was meant to benefit the people.  The politburo forgot about the socialist manifesto and were consumed by greed, hunger for power and ego.   It is estimated that over 70% of the economic output was used for military of space related pursuits as opposed to using it for the benefit of the people.

Socialist ideas to correct capitalism

Across the world, capitalism is actually implemented in a variety  of hybrid foirms using various concepts of socialism to temper or correct some of the isues as mentioned above. Scandinavian countries have adopted a greater socialist leaning style while China started with a communist regime and slowly openened up to free markets and capitalism. For this paper, I will focus on the US style of capitalism which is welfare state capitalism.  The state plays the role of creating welfare mechanisms that are funded by way of taxation.  The welfare programs are aimed and trying to assist the least advantaged in society by providing services and support, which is the US style of redistribution.

The ugly side of U.S. capitalism

We’ve sung the praises of capitalism, so now it is time to look at the other side.

Piketty⁸ shows us how the rate of growth of capital has outpaced the rate of growth of the economy over time in capitalism. This has resulted in the owners of capital and the means of production to grow far wealthier than those that just work for it.  The ideals of liberalism and capitalism asked us to believe in the individual and the supporters of capitalism such as Brennan¹⁴ presuppose that people are altruistic.  The reality is that people are inherently greedy and selfish as pointed out by Cohen¹⁵ and humans are still in their predatory phase of development.  

Saez and Zucman⁹  provide concrete data on the real state of the US capitalism today, stating that the bottom 50% have an average pre-tax income that has stagnated at $18,500 per adult, out of this rising share goes to taxes & health thus impeding wealth accumulation. At the top is the opposite process, booming income and falling taxes has snowballing wealth accumulation effect. 

According the Federal Reserve data¹⁰, the wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nations wealth and the bottom 80% own only 7%.   This trend has been continuing for decades since Reagan’s libertarian policies, with the wealth of the 400 richest Americans growing over 21 times since 1982.

Saez and Zucmanalso show how the tax policy in the US heavily favors the wealthy, as billionaires pay lower tax rates than the working-class; capital income is not or little taxed (with corporate retained earnings and reduced rates on dividends and capital gains); collapse of corporate taxation and  60% of the profits of US multinationals booked in tax havens.

The combination of capitalism with a taxation system that favors capital has resulted in massive wealth inequality.  Over the last 30 years the top 5% of the country have seen a significant rise in income and wealth while the bottom 20% has seen stagnation in their wages, thus in real terms, they are getting poorer.  US capitalism has been a huge of engine of economic growth but significant portion of the population is losing wealth.

Inequality has significant impact in society. It increasingly operates through education which is closely correlated with parental socio-economic status. With lower economic and educational expansion possibilities, income inequality increases and  upward mobility decreases. Mahbubhani¹¹ says these inequalities will enable those better situated to exercise a larger influence over the development of legislation. In due time they are likely to acquire a preponderant weight in settling social questions, at least in regard to those matters upon which they normally agree, which is to say in regard to those things that support their favored circumstances. There has been a transfer of wealth and political power from the vast majority of America’s population to a privileged super minority. Thus America is turning into a Plutocracy moving away from its democrtatic roots.

There is serious worry about the instability that arises out of massive inequality. Piketty says “Every human society must justify its inequalities: unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands in danger of collapse.”

Even billionaires such as Ray Dalio are increasingly concerned about the increasing wealth gap, booming debt and tax inequality are pushing America to a tipping point as he writes in a recent article¹². In a CBS interview in July 2019, he said “Capitalism needs to be reformed in order to work better” explaining that “the U.S. economy is not redistributing opportunity”. According to Dslio,  The current situation is not sustainable, and he says “We’re at a juncture. We can do it together, or we will do it in conflict, that there will be a conflict between the rich and the poor”

The tide continues to rise, but we only see the luxury yachts and cruise ships – while there are lots and lots little row boats not to be seen that are drowning, run aground or broken.  It’s a pretty picture but an ugly situation.

Redefining American capitalism

It is evident that  market forces alone cannot create a level playing field for all Americans. The welfare capitalism practiced in America expects the government must step in to redress major social and economic inequalities, however it has clearly failed to address the inequality.  This is largely due to the tax policies since Reagonomics being highly influenced by libertarian thought and by the wealthy, thus the welfare system that depends on tax revenues has been collecting less and less revenue from the wealthy and the highly profitable corporations.

How do we begin to redefine and redesign American capitalism? To present my views,  I would like to draw from from concepts from Physics.

Any complex system has multiple forces acting on it.  If the forces are acting in different direction and are unequal or changing often,  over time, the system will destabilize and will be broken apart.  For a stable system in the long run, the various forces needs to reach a state of equilibrium, mostly working in the same unified direction to create progression.  Societies are complex systems and for an enduring system, forces of stability and equilibrium need to be established.  Such a system would also meet the difference principle in Rawl’s principles of justice^13, causing a improvement in the weakest forces by a shift in the system to maintain equilibrium.

Unfortunately American capitalism is proving to be an unstable system.  Like Soviet communism in which the forces of the politburo were in contention with the forces of the needs of the people and the system collapsed.  Is it now America’s turn to collapse as Dalio predicts due to the predatory nature of the elite working in contention with the needs of the population at large?

To design a stable system, we need to understand the factors that create contention.  Any system that contains points of contention and too many compromises, will always be just 1 or 2 election cycles away from demise.

American history is that of liberalism. First and foremost, any system must recognize that liberty and individual rights cannot be violated.  

Taxation is the next real sticky point – the word “tax” is always taken perjoratively.  It is a fine, a burden, akin to punitive and so on.  A stable system will need to find an alternative way to make capital flow to where it is needed.

Interests and efforts need to be aligned. Today the capitalists believe it is their job to just create wealth at any expense and protect it from the state; the state is always looking  for ways to get revenue to meet is social obligations and over half the population are just trying to find a way to make ends meet.

The government alone cannot be responsible to take care of the issues of inequality and the needs of the disadvantaged. As Amartya Sensaid, for societies to progress they need the “invisible hand” of the free market and the “visible hand” of good governance.

What about philanthropy

The capitalists, wealthy elite and corporations usually shout foul, saying they pay their fair share of taxes as well as point to how much they give away through philanthropy. The first part of this argument has already been debunked with numbers such a provided by Saez / Zucman. 
As for philanthropy, while there are many well meanging and impactful philanthropists in
America, the system overall is broken. When the CEO’s of charities get multi million dollar salaries, they are nothing but quasi capitalist organizations.  It is estimated that on the average less than 15% of all charitible donations actually go the the causes they seek to benefit. It is also worthwhile to note that most corporate giving is self serving – marketing value, support the issue of the day and absolution of guilt – as opposed to being done with a true sense of purpose and desire for impact.

Welfare and charity also do not have the value of wealth creation.  They also have a negative impact on human dignity with people only able to subsuist with the “begging bowl” out. This is yet another destabilizing force.  While there is a place for some welfare and meaningful philanthropy,  they cannot be the cornerstone of a stable, just system of equality.

The new design

My new design of American capitalism (or what I would like to see change over the next decade or so), is a follows:

The critical requirement and feature is the alignment of all, through a “buy-in” from capitalists. They should be convinced that the elevation of all and the decreasing of inequality is as much their business as any one elses, with a shift in the mindset that government taxes cannot be solely responsible for welfare. Instead of a flow of money into government and out to government programs, there should be direct involvement of corporations in social equity programs. Economic justice becomes part of the mission of capitalists and they are directly engaged in such activity.  This can can be done via strong public/private partnerships that utilize both the breadth, the reach and the regulatory power of the state aliong with the innovation, efficiency and growth focus of the capitalist.  It is a way to redirect a part of the engine driven by greed and selfishness into focusing on social impact and community involvement.  Harnessing the human conditions that drive capitailism, as Cohensays, into social benefit.

An example of such public/private parterships could be an organization responsible for ensuring all schools in the state have the same level of resources and facilities. This is funded as well as assisted directly by corporations in the state, by way of money or by actual participation in the fixing of the schools.

Another facet I would propose is the greaster ownership of the means of production by the workers.  While Anderson¹⁶ believes a “voice at the table” is required, I would go further to say that some level of ownership is required to  remove alienation.. Companies like Publix supermarket are about 25% employee owned through a stock grant program for all employees which aligns workers completely with the company growth.   Silicon Valley strongly believe in this and so should corporate America as a whole.

As for taxation, the obvious changes should be closing of the corporate tax haven loophole, treating income and capital gains equally and a more progressive tax system.  However since the welfare of the community will be directly influenced by capitalist, this de facto will be a progressive tax without the negative connotation of the word “tax”. Finally, there maybe need for some multi-year period of wealth tax after which only the increase in wealth would be taxed.

Challenges and rebuttal

The obvious challenge is that of the difficulty of achieving this and the difficulty in changing the mindset and consciousness of capitalists.  I see it differently as it is a matter of messaging. Corporations that directly benefit society get the benefit of goodwill from society, which help business in the long run. They get the benefit of less alienated and more engaged wiorkers. But more importantly they feel they have a say and some level of control and participation in social welfare programs as opposed to just being taxed and the government wasting it through inefficiency and beaurocracy.  This entire message will ring strong with them.

There are many examples already – Chobani Yogurt actively particaptes in social community building activity and redistribution of profits with it employees and the community at large and has become one of the most successful and respected wellness food companies in the process.

Conclusion

I have proposed a different type of capitalism which meets the needs of libertarian and modern American liberals alike, it defocuses taxation and a large welfare state, it aligns the power of capitalism to social good and to assist in the problem of inequality.  It is a stable system with the forces aligned. I don’t know what to call it, and although we don’t need another “ism” I will call it “social purpose capitalism”.

All the boats are now tethered together and they truly can all rise with a rising tide.   The ideal of capitalism can be realized.

References

¹ Smith, Adam “The Wealth of Nations” 

² Wilson, Sy “Capitalism and Economic Growth Across the World”. Jan 2016, SSRN Electronic Journal

³  Skarbek, Emily   “Capitalism and Economic Growth”, Independent Institute, April 2010

⁴  Lawson, Robert   “Capitalism is slowly winning around the world” SMU Cox School of Business

⁵  Hayek, Fredrich “The Road to Serfdom” , 1944 University of Chicago Press

⁶  Rand, Ayn “Capitalism: the unknown ideal” , 1966 New American Library

⁷ Watkins, Thaker “The Economic Collapse of the Soviet Union”, San José State University

Department of Economics

 ⁸  Piketty, Thomas “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” , 2017 Harvard University Press

⁹ Saez, E. and Zucman, G.  “The Triumph of Injustice” W.W. Norton, 2019

¹⁰ “New Federal Reserve data shows how the rich have gotten richer”. vox.com. June 13, 2019.

¹¹ Mahbubhani, Kishore “Democracy or Plutocracy?” Horizons, Autumn 2020, No. 17

¹² Dalio, Ray “The Archetypical Cycle of Internal Order and Disorder”  LinkedIn, Dec1, 2020

¹³ Rawls, John “A Theory of Justice” Harvard University Press 1971

¹⁴ Brennan, Jason “Why Not Capitalism?” Routledge, 2014

¹⁵ Cohen, G.A. “Why Not Socialism?” Princeton University Press, 2009

¹⁶  Anderson, Elizabeth. “Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives” Princeton University Press, 2017

Give me liberty or give me equality was the subtitle of a popular magazine article from 1983[1] comparing John Rawls and Robert Nozick.  Both are regarded as amongst the most highly influential and groundbreaking political philosophers of the twentieth century. Both have been studied, discussed and debated within government, politics and academia. However, it does seem an oversimplication to characterize them as divided between equality and liberty. Rawls work brought together two fundamental views of political philophy, that of libertarianism and egalitarianism, in which he tried to resolve the division between the two by meeting the libertarian demand of personal freedom and also to meet the egalalitarian need of equality through economic redistributive structures.  Nozick was primarily a libertarian and was partially responsible from bringing many libertarian views into the mainstream of thought. Libertarians generally defend benefits of market competition, incompetence of state bureaucracies and the need for smaller government, all of which Nozick endorses, but his main defense of libertarianism is a moral one – that the strongest reason to advocate a libertarian society is simply a serious respect for individual rights and liberty.  Thus, individual freedom, liberty and rights do form a common ground for both, however it does deviate from there.  To understand this, we first look at Rawls work and then explore how Nozick may object.

Rawls developed a theory of the good as justice, which he calls Justice as Fairness, in which he describes an Original Positon, one that is not an actual historical state of affaris, but a hypothetical, primitive condition of culture, which will lead to an unbiased conception of principles of justice. The principles are chosen by individuals that operate under a ‘veil of ignorance, which he argues is necessary to find the basic principles of a society, in which individuals  should know nothing about their own social class, personal talent or wealth.. From this, fair principles about how our society should be run are produced as such ignorance leads to us to be concerned for the equality of everyone. Individuals will choose a society that most concerned for those who are least fortunate because it could be possible that they could be the worst off along with them.

From the original position, Rawls states the two core principles of justice that he believes would be chosen. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to  basic liberties, enumerated as the right to vote and run for public office, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of conscience, and the right to own property. These liberties should be available to the greatest degree as long as it is consistent with everyone having these freedoms equally. The second principle has two parts, the first being fair equality of opportunity, which requires that those with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. The second part is the Difference Principle which requires that economic and social inequalities be arranged in such a way that they are of the greatest benefit to society’s least advantaged. Rawls does not state that equality is necessary for  justice or does he deny the existence of inequalitites, but requires that there must be just inequalities only.  An inequality is unjust except insofar as it is a necessary means to improving the position of the worst off and thus it has to be shown that the degree of inequality is necessary to achieve as high a level of w for the lowest group.  This clearly implies the need of institutions which have the authority and responsibility for the distribution of weath, while not necessarily equal, but to everyones advantage.  Rawls was noticeably distinct in that he suggested that social arrangements should be evaluated from the stand point of the worst-off position as opposed to utilitarians who were concerned about total or average welfare. Rawls also had little interest in details or nuance of property rights and did not consider anything natural about the ownership of property, which he believed was an effect not a natural starting point.

Nozick as well states several key principles.  His first principle is that each individual is endowed with three fundamental rights: the right not to be physically injured, not to have his liberty limited, and not to have his property taken without his consent.  He wrote extensively on the topic of propery holdings which he refers to as justice in holding and in his entitlement theory, he states that if the world was wholly just, then the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer and if each person’s holdings are just, then the total set is just. In this structure, Nozick argues that the state should thus be a minimal one and  its purpose should be nothing more than  to protect the rights, as stated above,  of individual persons. Nozick advocates that individuals should make decisions of whether or not to help the least advantaged in society; the state should not to be responsible or impose an obligation to do so

While it seems that there is little discord between Nozick and Rawls on the right of liberties, the key objection by Nozick would be in the difference principle as he sees no place for the state or institutions to be involved with redistribution as a means of maintaining justice. Nozick would strongly claim that any state that forcibly uses taxes as a method of redistribution, thus taxing the rich for the benefit of the disadvantaged, would be violating the liberty of the rich. He would argue that  governments had no right to infringe on the rights of individuals by taking their money and giving it to others.  He would also conclude that redistributive taxation is morally illegitimate.  Since individuals also own themselves, they have the right to determine whether and how to use their own bodies and powers. Taxation in his view amounts to a kind of forced labor or slavery as part of the wealth produced from individual labor is being taken away to provide benefits for other – thus implying that the system creates an unsanctioned partial ownership of an individual by others, which in inconsistent with principles of liberty.

Rawls would respond that redistribution under the difference principle would only be considered just insofar that it does not violate the paramount first principle of justice of fairness, one of basic liberties.  Since these principles have to apply to all individuals, Rawls would argue that even if one believes that there is an impact on the liberties of the rich, the impact on the liberties of the less advantaged is far more pronounced. With lack of state redistribution vast economic differences between rich and poor will occur which themselves will result in a denial of liberty. The disadvantaged lose freedom of where to live, education, legal representation etc. and potentially due to multiple second order effects, the compromise of constitutional rights. Liberty is clearly inextricably attached to economic position and well being.

Nozick would probably argue that individual liberty will quickly upset the system of redistribution and will recreate an unequal distribution of goods. In that case the state would be required to continually interfere in the lives of people, and in so doing no justice is served. 

In response, Rawls could demonstrate how the evolutionary cycles would result in a different outcome. Redsitribution is not limited to “Robin Hood” style taking from the rich and giving to the poor as Rawls does not propose a welfare state.  Rather redistribution is to lift the disadvantaged in multiple ways as per the first part of the second principle, that of equality of opportunity.  Successful use of redistributive wealth will create fairer and more equal opportunity for the disadvantaged, which will result in less inequality or disparity.  As this cycle continues, the need for redistribution and thus taking from the rich should diminish.

Rawls may also state that in the Nozickian setup, there is a presupposition of a just world, however left to their own accord and to market forces only, individual liberty will not choose norms that are equally just as the wealthy or better placed will only be incentized to improve their individual position.  While this will lead to inequality in wealth, which is not necessarily an issue for Rawls, it will also result in inequality of justice – thus the making Nozick assumption of a just world invalid.  In other words, individual liberty depends on justice, but in itself will make individuals move to a bias of justice, thus destroying liberty itself.

Take the example of a transaction of property,  a barter between two individuals, done willfully. Each holding was just in itself and the transaction would be considered just by Nozick. Thereafter an earthquake destroys one propertly, leaving the acquirer severely financially hurt. This would not bother Nozick. However a Rawlsian may question whether there was a equality of information (akin to education) and thus a level playing field when the transaction was done. If one party had information on the upcoming earthquake, it is not a just transaction. In a Rawls society, the state would be responsible for maintaining equal access to public information, as per the principle of fair equality of opportunity,  in which case the transaction would be just. In a Nozick world, individuals and the markets are responsible, which have little incentive to make information ubiquitous.

The Rawlsian construct of justice and equality seems to hold in this debate. Alexis de Tocqueville neatly summarizes this in his classic Democracy in America[2] as he said “It is not that peoples with a democratic state naturally scorn freedom. On the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it. But freedom is not the chief and continual object of their desires; it is equality for which they feel an eternal love; they rush on freedom with quick and sudden impulses but if they miss their mark they resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing will satisfy them without equality, and they would rather die than lose it.”

---

[1] Randal Rothenberg,, March 1983, Philosopher Robert Nozick vs. Philosopher John Rawls,  Esquire Magazine,  

[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America

On reading the first dialogues of Hume, I found myself drawn into the argument of the existence of a supreme designer, especially as I was watching Our Planet  on Netflix in parallel.  But during my travels I thought about it vis a vis evolution and was less convinced. This also came out in the later dialogues with Philo’s skepticism. Thinking about it further, we look at nature and its offering essentially at a point in time.  But nature is continuously moving and changing.   To use analogies like that of a well designed watch is wrong, as the watch is a final product and thus has a defined final design. Anything in nature is just it’s current design at that point of time.  So when we look at something spectacular in nature, we cannot thus conclude it was created by intelligent design, but rather that it is part of a continuous process of design improvement that nature is carrying out that has lasted for an almost infinite amount of time and will continue forever.  Thus, there is no deliberate design, and thus a result of the design. I assume this thought essentially describes what we call evolution.

If we take the beginning of life itself and it just keeps taking billions and billions of different arrangements randomly, for which all it needs is time, the abundance of which nature had, the result will be many variations of life form, some which will survive, some which will not – and this just continues. 

So now I find myself in a position in which I am skeptical of an intelligent designer by looking at nature.  However, could it be that the evolutionary process is the intelligent design or is that just the result of randomness of very large numbers (remember the theory of infinite monkeys with typewriters and infinite time will create Shakespeare’s writings).  I am left completely questioning the intelligent design view.

Samuel Scheffler’s article “The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously.” NYU Law Magazine, 2014, describes a scenario from P.D. James’s novel Children of Men, in which humans are inflicted with irreversible infertility and there is no one under the age 25 on earth.  James says that this would likely produce widespread depression, anxiety and despair making some people seek consolation and some to take pleasure in whatever they can – although it would all have the backdrop of sadness and pain.

However, I believe the impact on humans is conditional on the demographics of the existing population.  If the youngest people alive are still near 25, then theoretically there is still a large population of people that have many years to live.  Given our actions tend to be relatively short term focused, there would be many not drawn into despair and will continue to give importance to their activities and projects.  However, if the youngest population was say over 60, it would definitely be a different scenario and all activity would seem total unimportant and futile and there would be widespread depression as everyone just waits for the demise of the human race.

But do assume that the population is currently like the former. It would change most people’s perspective on their activities, but not necessarily make them stop due to the feeling of lack of importance.  Many of our activities revolve around our children and their children.  Creating homes and wealth to pass on; gaining wisdom and knowledge to transfer to them.  All such activities would become totally futile and lose their importance completely.  But the projects and activities that are for ourselves, for our own personal experience and fulfillment – should not be compromised. It will still be a joy to travel around the world and experience nature, it will still be fulfilling to create art and music. We see these activities as part of our life on this earth. This should apply to those who believe in the after life as well as those who don’t.  If you don’t, then you seek these activities for personal satisfaction while alive. If you believe in the after life, you may believe that the after life if not dependent on our material bodies on this material earth and thus the lack of fertility does not matter and our souls will still continue somewhere, somehow, benefitting from the rich experiences we gained while alive.

But then I think of my mother. A famous poet and writer (who passed away recently). It was extremely important that she left an enduring legacy on this planet with her writings so that generations to come could enjoy it. That was her stamp on humanity which created her personal sense of immortality.  If the scenario above happened in her lifetime, there is no doubt she would lose all importance of the value of her writing and fall into deep despair.

While my former argument is based on the assumption that human individualism will allow most to continue to find value in our activities, Mr. Scheffler believes these assumptions are oversimplified and that removing the assumption of an ongoing humanity, the confidence in our purpose will erode .  But from the latter example of my mother, clearly Mr. Scheffler is correct insofar if a person’s purpose is undeniably dependent on the existence of future generations.

If wisdom is innate, then by definition, everyone is “wise” – just to different extents based on our knowledge, experience and how we have used both of these to gain wisdom.

So when it is suggested that we ask ourselves the question, “…what would a wise man or woman do…,  it begs the question,  how do you define “a wise man or woman”.   If wisdom is innate, then the original question could really be “…what would  I do..”

Since there is no objective and definitive measure of “a wise man” how can we even begin to think of what a wise man would do.  You can get a Phd in Physics and you will be a expert in Physics – this is objective.  But wisdom is relative and omnipresent, if it is truly innate – so the question of what would a wise man of woman do is somewhat impossible or thus redundant.

I have also heard the saying “… everyone is born a genius..”   My interpretation of that has been that every child is born with the ability to learn, to grow, to achieve – given the right nurturing, environment etc.   So if wisdom is innate, then the realization and exposure of that internal wisdom in us, requires the learning from our life experiences.   But one could make the same argument for courage and love.  So why wouldn’t those be considered innate? Or is there some definition of the threshold of stimulation that is required to bring these out in us – which defines which are innate.  The lower the threshold, the more innate?

We often hear about “..a wise old man..”.  That should not be confused with an intelligent person or one with a lot of expertise or knowledge in one or many areas.  Wisdom come from experiences that we learn from and which make us a “better” human being.  The wisdom to discern right and wrong, good or evil, meaningful or meaningless, ethical or unethical and so on.  We are not taught these, they are developed from our experiences and thus the view that wisdom is innate.  But then would the lack of these experiences at any point mean that wisdom is not possible at that point?  Then maybe Locke is right is saying that when we are born we are like a clean slate, a blank canvas.   But maybe wisdom is still there – like white light of the blank canvas. Our experiences over time bring out the colors and vividness on the canvas – but it all started from the existence of an innate wisdom.

ONE of the several traits, and arguably the most important one, that sets humans apart from the animal kingdom, is our desire for knowledge.   Humans have always had the insatiable need to learn about and decipher the world around them.  The result of this is why we have houses with heating and air conditioning, the reason we can travel by air, the reason we have electricity, the reason we have conquered many disease, the reason we have cell phones and the internet, the reason we have functioning societies and legal frameworks,

Thus we must not belittle the value of learning.   Our schools provide the foundation of such education and learning to prepare us to explore and learn new things as we go through life.  While many children feel that school subjects are pointless and a bore, they actually all have a reason and a purpose.  The sciences help us understand and explain the world around us, the mathematics gives us a sense of order and objectiveness, social studies help us understand society and where we came from and how we got here, languages give us the ability to communicate better with those around us.

Education and learning thus should always be given a priority and importance in your life.  That being said, you may not like every topic or subject you are asked to study, but the only way for one to know what is interesting is to be exposed to many subjects.   The world is extremely complex, and various fields of learning are constantly overlapping and interacting with each other.  Psychologists sometimes need the logic of math; scientists need the philosophical insight and the businessman needs to understand cultures and traditions.  Thus exposure and learning of many subjects is important at the school level.

Obviously there are other traits which set us apart as humans – such as our desire to be creative in music, arts, writing etc and our ability to appreciate this creativity.  No other animal creates varieties of songs and music, shapes and forms, expressionism etc.  And thus the exploration of the creative side is also important.  There are others like the philosophical and the physical side as well.

All these go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive and the exploration or emphasis on one should not compromise the other.   As we grow, we may tend to focus more on one area of the other and sometimes there may be limitations preventing us from exploring some of these areas – but as human beings we must try not to consciously ignore any of these traits during our lives.

So make sure learning and education remain a priority – make sure you give them their due and your best effort and attention.   If you make learning a part of your life, then you will not see it as a chore or a bother – it is just natural.